Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2015

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

RD: Julie Harris

 * Weak support on notability, however, as the nominator has already mentioned the article is way below the standards we'd like to see on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support We need the article improved significantly to establish if she was a true leader in the field. I'm trying to scan through lists of great costume designs, and this name is not coming up compared to someone like Edith Head, in any shape or form, begging her importance. --M ASEM (t) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh, but I kind of like the thing we've been doing lately, which is not posting more than one RD at a time or even leaving the field blank for days on end, because we've set such a high (and arbitrary) bar for inclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Crabbing aside, I'll support on notability grounds, but quality should be addressed before posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's working pretty well - at any given point in time, the ticker is just as likely to be full as it is to be empty. If anybody worthwhile is being excluded, it's usually because of article quality issues. Standards are a good thing to have, for both notability and article quality. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus standards on this page appear to be quite a bit higher than the guideline standards (the article must have been satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect. The article must conform to WP:Biographies of living persons even though they are dead.) That might either be a problem for this page or that one, but this nomination's probably not the place to discuss it.  To be dreary, and bring it back to the topic at hand, this person seemed to be in some ways an ideal candidate: a behind the scenes person who had an important creative input in iconic films, not a movie star at all but a creative person important enough to qualify as a significant figure.  Unfortunately, the papers aren't reporting what her favorite breakfast cereals were.  I simply think that a rather stubbish article on a relatively private public figure like this may be about what's needed.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard includes the use of BLP, which sets a minimum sourcing level we expect to see. It may not be clear from the ITN instructions, but BLP is very clear that these articles need to be well-sourced. --M ASEM (t) 04:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The BLP requirements that an article be well sourced set limits to the best possible article that can be written about significant figures who don't attract a whole lot of media attention.  That doesn't diminish their significance if they otherwise meet WP:ITND. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is just a couple of bullet-lists and infoboxes away from being a stub. The section with actual biographical text seems very brief. She was active in her industry from 'the 1950s' until 1991. Almost everything about her seems to take place between about 1947 and 1967 - despite her career's length. An Academy Award does make her notable enough - but the article is depressingly short for someone that lived for that long. Challenger l (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edith Head was notable enough that she was parodied on The Incredibles and her article far outweighs Harris's. Notable enough for an article, but not ITN/RD. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Beau Biden

 * Oppose, he's been sick for a while, and potential notability does not equal notability. Neither does inherited nobility exist. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Former attorney general of a U.S. state" doesn't meet our notability standards, irrespective of whether the deceased individual was related to a high-ranking politician.  —David Levy 05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the death was not unexpected, the relation of a VP has no precedent of being posted in other countries, and a minor politcal dynasty in a small state where the son rode on his father's coat tails neither qualifies him as influential or in the top of his field. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the death was not unexpected. It wasn't public knowledge that Beau Biden was suffering from brain cancer until his death was announced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regretfully oppose - Doesn't meet RD criteria per David above. A bit surprising for me, but that shouldn't rally factor into this. Connormah (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support "Former attorney general of a U.S. state" is notable enough for RD in todays society. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Unless you just mean US society.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Medium-level political position in one of many states of one country, hardly significant in his field.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Saiga antelope pandemic

 * Support unless somebody can come up with a good reason why not. But didn't this hit the news a couple of days ago? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Luckily it's called "In The News", not "Today's News". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be uncivil. See below; Medeis understood that I was only talking about the position of the item on the list. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support this is the place I would come for information on both the animal itself, which is fascinating, and the outbreak. Given the event is ongoing, but only hitting the popular press now, I think it's safe to post as of the date of nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but the "2015 pandemia" subsection needs a bit of expansion. (Also "this month" needs to be changed to "May" as we're entering June tomorrow). 117.192.184.172 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting and ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment article is in good nick, notable story, I've added an alt blurb which I believe is in slightly more accurate terms, the image there has been protected for immediate use if we move this to the main page, would be interested to hear if the alt blurb is any better, and happy to hear suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb also if the image is used would prefer an image that highlights the uniqueness of the facial features, eg this one or a cropped photo that shows the animal's head more. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted with the current image. I agree it would be nice to have another image which is of high quality which focuses more on the facial feature, but right now I'm just happy that I've (hopefully) updated the news section along with keeping the image at the top without breaking anything.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest change the blurb a little, to About half the world's Saiga, a critically endangered species... The way it is written now implies that while half of the critically endangered Saiga died, the rest are okay. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How could some saiga antelopes have a different conservation status than others? Your suggested wording strikes me as strained.  —David Levy 00:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the whole sentence. It is a misplaced modifier. "Almost half of the world's critically endangered saiga antelopes (example pictured) die in May from suspected pasteurellosis."  This could easily and logically be followed by "The world's unendangered Saiga, however, are fine."  That is a normal circumstance where animals are endangered in one area of the world, but not another.  The problem can be solved with any of a few easy changes.  "Almost half of the world's saiga antelopes, already critically endangered, (example pictured) die in May from suspected pasteurellosis." μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Misplaced modifiers of this nature are only a problem for people who have the mental defect of being unable to understand simple context clues most humans understand naturally and without effort. We don't need to cater to linguistic pedants when the sentence is perfectly understandable as it is, and where the proposed changed actually, while being grammatically pure, obfuscate the meaning of the statement more than the current phrasing.  -- Jayron 32 01:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I clarified my point only because David did not see it. It's not like I am going to rage up and down at people as incompetent admins and such over this.  Name calling is not necessary, Jayron32.  You could simply of said "I understand your point, but I think it's fine as is." μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the characterization didn't apply to you, you'd have had to reason to be offended. -- Jayron 32 02:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the future, if you're not calling me a pedant, please don't post directly after me, indent under me indicating a direct response, and refer to my linguistic specialty. It is easy to keep a collegial tone. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood your concern's syntactical basis. I didn't (and don't) understand why such a misunderstanding would occur in real life.
 * In any event, Tariqabjotu either fulfilled your request or arrived at similar wording independently. —David Levy 03:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Doris Hart

 * Oppose on article quality, would support on significance, but the article is dreadful. Almost nothing is referenced.  We can't tell the world "This is the best Wikipedia has to offer" by putting such a substandard article on the main page.  Take the existing text, add references for every paragraph or fact, and you'll have something postable.  The current article is not main page ready, however.  If anyone makes the requisite fixes before I comment again, consider my oppose to have already been changed before asking me again.  But please fix it before posting.  -- Jayron 32 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose, article has since been fixed and is of sufficient quality for a full Support to post. -- Jayron 32 02:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should lower the bar enough to keep three people, not just one, on the RD ticker at all times. But I am leery of posting old athletes. Back then tennis was a leisure-class sport and the pool of players was nothing like it is now.  As the variation in players has increased, the record extremes in competitions has shrunk.
 * See S J Gould make this point about the disappearance of .400 hitting in baseball. Here's a nine minute video (he appears at 1:23, the essence of the argument starts after minute 3) where Gould explains his thesis that the players of today are much better, even while some records of old seem impressive. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I respect Mr. Gould as both an evolutionary biologist and a philosopher of science. That he was a sports fan, and made his opinions on sports known, is pretty much irrelevant to the current discussion. If Mike Greenberg or Frank Deford had statements to make on evolutionary biology, I'd find them no more relevant to discussions on THAT topic than Stephen J. Gould's opinions on batting averages and tennis skill.  Being famous in one field does not mean that one's statements are automatically relevant to all fields.  -- Jayron 32 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll simplify. Gould's not making a biological, but a statistical argument, which certainly applies to sports.  When a sport is young and new and has but a few competitors who've been brought up by dedicated parents, coaches, and other professionals, and been tutored on skills learned over a great number of player hours, it is easy for one or a few exceptional players in that small field to stand out.  But when a sport has matured and millions or billions of dollars are spent and there is a large crop of exceptional players well skilled at both offense and defense, then exceptional records become rarer, because the opponents are better matched.  The opponents of today may be greatly superior to the record-holding players of a century ago, when there were a few thousand well-heeled tennis players, rather than tens of thousands picked by skill and supported even if they were poor or black or from the wrong country or not university schooled.  Perhaps Doris Hart's quite notable, especially if she developed new techniques that revolutionized the sport.  That's not mentioned in her article or her obit.  But the mere fact that she held a string of records in the 40's doesn't mean she'd even qualify in today's much wider field. This is not an oppose, it's a caution. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A point which is simultaneously all interesting, true, and irrelevant. -- Jayron 32 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on notability but as the tag suggests, we need to improve the quality of the article a shade. You can only beat what's put in front of you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Hart was one of only three people in the history of tennis who won the singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles at each of the four grand slam events. This is a profoundly difficult achievement and was so in an age when tennis was just as popular as it is now. We presently have a minor basketball hall of famer on the main page, his achievements in his field don't come close to Hart's in hers. The "it happened ages ago" argument is bunk. One plays the players of your era, not the present day. We need more women featured in the recent deaths section, and Hart should be an easy pick. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once better refs are added. A LOT more refs. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is adequate. Support posting promptly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Kudzu, the missing sources noted above by several users have been fixed. This is hardly a perfect article, but it has no obvious defects that would keep it off the main page.  I'd post, except I've already commented; marking ready.  -- Jayron 32 02:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Substantial achievements in an internationally important sport.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life in prison

 * Oppose It clearly wasn't going to be the difference between a prison term and a death sentence, but to how much a degree his prison term would be at the time of conviction (plus any monetary damage, etc.) So there's no reason to repost the actual sentence here. --M ASEM  (t) 22:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Links to the prolix (4,300-word) Silk Road (marketplace) article. There's no Ross Ulbricht article. Sca (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The life sentence is presumably to be a deterrent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose already posted, investigators in the case were themselves arrested, attempted murder charges were dropped, that makes this a basic trafficking case an not worthy of posting twice. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, consensus was followed and the conviction posted. Doubtless there will be a book and a movie coming out on the whole story for those that want more detail. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose once is enough for this story, particularly in light of the striking absence of an article for such an individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Cuba eliminated from State Sponsors of Terrorism list

 * Oppose We posted this previously here, and as noted there and in these sources, Obama's action started a 45 day timer for Congress to oppose the remove. Today (read: this story) is after that 45 day deadline expired, and Congress did not raise anything, so the action goes through by default. --M ASEM (t) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as procedural per Masem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we already posted the initiation of the process leading to removal. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 65th FIFA Congress

 * Support per nom. Lucky102 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I think we would have run this even if the corruption scandal hadn't come up and it had been the boring election predicted before Wednesday. I do suggest we combine it with the other FIFA story if possible. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose new blurb but would support update to existing blurb if possible to word it properly. The election itself would have been unnotable except for the arrests a few days before.  It is only in relation to the arrests and the controversy that the election is in the news.  -- Jayron 32 17:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in re-updating existing blurb - The fact the elections went forward despite the controversy (and when FIFA was cautioned against having the elections now), it's part of the same story. --M ASEM (t) 17:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless we've posted Blatter's other election cakewalks. Not a national election, and a process that is essentially fraudulent by many accounts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, we posted his 2011 victory, even though he was the only candidate. Lucky102 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a sham election. Plus the article is in terrible state. Nergaal (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no proof at present that the election is a sham and the results were falsified. The runner up stood down so Blatter won by default. He did not reach a majority. The article is being fixed by myself and Nil at the moment into a better state. The event is made more notable after the recent arrests of FIFA members.Lucky102 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to bribes. Considering how rampant corruption is within FIFA one can really not exclude bribes being involved in this 200+ voters gathering. Nergaal (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose Wouldn't even be considered except for the recent FIFA news.  Spencer T♦ C 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment And yes, we also featured the 61st FIFA Congress when Sepp Blatter was elected in June 2011 which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ITN_archives/2011/June Lucky102 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Incremental update, which happens with most of the stories we post. Not important enough to add to the existing blurb, either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as I have stated above Sepp Blatter was reelected in 2011 and this was also on ITN. Lucky102 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose struck. Article needs significant improvements (see 61st_FIFA_Congress for example) before this is ready for posting.  Spencer T♦ C 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Its an addendum to the current posting other the political context. NOT an independent addition. Logical addendum at that.120.62.2.40 (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose its only in the news because of the other news that has already been posted. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sufficiently important and it is a sub story of the FIFA arrests, which posting IMO violated long standing precedents against posting arrest stories. This has already garnered more attention on ITN than it should have until there are notable convictions. Let's not compound the mistake. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support modifying the blurb to add just a few words like "prior to Sepp Blatter's fifth election to FIFA president". This is still global news, whether people here like it or not.  It even features the Feds so that should really excite people... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should be kept in mind that the arrests were made at the hotel where they were gathering for this election, so this approach makes sense. --M ASEM (t) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support TRM's proposal. Adding a few words to the blurb is justified - the fact that Blatter has been reelected despite the scandal is pretty significant news. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support proposal by TRM. This is notable in the context of the wider scandal, and the existing blurb should reflect that. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose both new blurb and amended blurb. Widely expected result of a non-governmental election that was probably heavily influenced by underhanded dealings and has the effect of changing nothing.  If the outcome wasn't obvious in advance, it certainly was when two of four candidates withdrew in protest even before voting started.  For the foreseeable future the real story is and will be the criminal prosecutions, and I see no need to elevate the election sideshow by including in on ITN.  If UEFA makes good on their threat to possibly withdraw from FIFA, that would also be appropriate for ITN, but I would skip the election.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support adding this fact to the existing posting, as per others here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "election" result was about as predictable and as interesting as Barcelona or Real Madrid winning La Liga for the 50th time. Let's leave some room for some non-soccer stories every once and a while. --Tocino 08:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support modification of existing blurb suggested by TRM, as per others. 117.192.177.194 (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose nom per Ad Orientem we don't post the selection of the commissioners of other sports and this doesn't need twice posting within a month. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing: ISIL

 * Support per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be in the news again, unfortunately. Brandmeistertalk  15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that article: No statement one way or the other whether or not the concept should be put in ongoing. However, Ongoing is for highlighting articles that are changing rapidly along with the news developments.  That one has no major activity in the past week or more, and no edits at all for over 48 hours.  If you have another article in mind which is keeping track of the recent developments, please put that one forward for us to assess, but the ISIL article itself is not appropriate for an ongoing link, given its lack of major ongoing changes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. If I remember correctly, that was the section featured in Ongoing previously. Brandmeistertalk  17:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That list has one new entry in the past week.  Hardly an "ongoing" series of updates, n'est ce pas?  Ongoing means "very active recently, now, and likely in the immediate future".  It's easy to spot eligible ongoing candidates by clicking the article history.  Major content was added on the 27th, previously on the 22nd.  That level of activity is not what ongoing is for: ongoing is for highlighting articles where we would nearly constantly be posting new blurbs or updating them.  The last event which was blurb worthy was the May 21 capture of Palmyra, which we already did a blurb for.  The May 27th capture of a phosphate mine (the only recent update to the article) is fantastically engaging to learn about, I'm sure, but really, that isn't the article to highlight.  Pick a new one, and let us look at that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Perhaps Timeline of ISIL related events would be a more appropriate target? It seems to have been updated with an entry from two days ago. Everymorning   talk  17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the same problem. If it was only edited with a new event 2 days ago, and that was the phosphate mine capture (a turning point without equal, I'm sure) and there's nothing else before that for a week, that isn't ongoing.  Find an article which has stuff being added all the time.  otherwise, we don't have an appropriate link for ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I previously removed this because the article linked was not being consistently updated. As Jayron's saying above, if we can find a good article that's going to be updated, it can be posted, but I'm just worried the same thing as before is going to happen again.  Spencer T♦ C 20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have a suitable target. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggested target article, while bloated and full of issues, has been updated a few times in the past few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Australopithecus deyiremeda

 * Comment. Article relies on quotes and really could use more work. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Article could use some work, as noted, but definite support on notability. New hominins are always worthy of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is doubt about it being distinct enough to be a new species. Accordingly, the article quality must be better than if this were a radically different hominim. The article should describe this doubt, for instance. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support notability, although quality of course must be addressed before posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support article needs expansion about diet of species based on the jaw, someone who specialises in this field should include that. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely notable enough for inclusion. interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unready based on quality. Needs a proper lead and some full paragraphs rather than just a string of sentences. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously notable in a world where creationism is a majority. Faizan (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that part of ITN's mission was refuting creationism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support conditional on article improvement. I am unsure how much coverage this is getting but it does seem significant. The time frame for these developments is somewhat vague and needs to be clarified as part of an overall improvement in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability - discovery of a new hominid species is major news - but oppose on article quality. It's not much more than a stub. Challenger l (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment article looks good to go, and consensus is for posting it barring the earlier issues, so marking ready. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  11:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I added seven wikiprojects and they all rated the article, and have had time to propose any changes. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral since there's no scientific consensus this one jaw fragment is enough to declare a species. The article should not have been marked ready with no sections, an inadequate lead, and just a list of lone sentences.  But I have rectified that, so if there's consensus to post it is actually now Ready μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 04:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Suriname

 * Support pending article improvements ITNR, but the article really needs more prose, such as describing the campaigning leading to the election, and reaction to the election results. --M ASEM (t) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment– Because Sunday's Polish election (see below) has n't been posted. Why is this one more important? Sca (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Suriname's National Democratic Party is leftist, while Polish Law and Justice party is rightist. Brandmeistertalk  13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN is not just about the topic being in the news but the article being of appropriate quality to be linked off the front page of WP, and currently the Polish results are far from quality. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Masem, "importance" is of minor concern. If you want the Polish item to be posted then you are responsible for improving the article.  The main reason why one article is not posted, where another may be, is quality of the article.  If you feel that an article should be posted, then you are responsible for bring it up to quality standards.  Complaining that others didn't do the work you're responsible for will not get you anywhere.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - article will need a lot of work to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply – Jayron, I didn't participate in preparation of Polish presidential election, 2015 because that task should be performed by eds – hopefully some of them Polish-speakers – particularly versed in Polish politics, which I'm not. My perspective is one focused on European affairs generally.
 * Having said that, I find the present article adequately detailed; it's supplemented by three charts and two maps, in addition to (too many?) candidates' photos. Although parts aren't written in a style I would favor, the longish second paragraph provides decent context for the significance of the conservative-cum-populist-nationalist Law and Justice Party's victory.
 * Poland is the most populous country in what's commonly thought of as Eastern Europe, and a (somewhat outspoken) member of NATO, but has yet to adopt the euro. Since Law and Justice tends to be more euro-skeptical than the centrist Civic Platform party of Komorowski and Tusk (who's European Council president), the election result was broadly significant for the EU and therefore of interest internationally.
 * This story has been conspicuous by its absence from ITN, in my opinion, which I sought to express succinctly below. It would be inconsistent to post the May 25 Suriname election without first posting the May 24 Polish election. (Full disclosure: I once lived & worked in Poland for a time, hence my interest in Polish affairs.)
 * PS: Note that Masem says Polish election "should be ready to go" below. Sca (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support conditional on significant article improvement. On a side note the Polish Election needs to be posted as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per reasoning of ad orentem.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is still a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] FIFA arrests/raid of HQ

 * Support on significance, though the text in the target article is a little light. Can we add any more context as to the background of what led up to the arrests?  What actions by FIFA in more details led to this event?  Clearly a big deal, but I'm not sure I know more from reading the Wikipedia article than the names of the arrested and that they were arrested for taking bribes, but there's no background as to what bribes they were taking and for what reasons they were supposedly taking them.  If we could expand the article a bit before posting, so the article is more informative for the reader, that'd be ideal.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Ordinarily (and I expect some people will appear shortly to object on these grounds) we don't post arrests - only convictions. However, a mass arrest of most of the board of what is arguably the world's largest international organization (more members than the UN!) by the police of two nations simultaneously, and a raid on its headquarters is ridiculously rare news. It's also worth noting that Chuck Blazer, who was effectively the most powerful person in American soccer (for many years the US's representative on the FIFA Executive Committee, executive vice president of United States Soccer Federation and General Secretary of CONCACAF) has already pleaded guilty. Smurrayinchester 10:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support headline news across the globe, international involvement, article could use a little beefing up but will doubtless be enhanced as more news comes out. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! You're generally quite agreeable. Is that a reason for the merits of the content instead of personal tastes?120.62.19.234 (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; Note article is now at 2015 FIFA corruption case; blurb may need to be tweaked as events unfold (i.e. two FIFA officials have been indicted but don't appear to have been arreste yet). Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a major story that's been reported throughout the world. Calidum T&#124;C 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle when target article is updated. Undoubtedly, the top news headline throughout the planet. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am likely going to be pretty lonely on this one but oh well. It has been consistent policy to post only convictions, not arrests. Recently we rejected the Texas Mass Shooting that resulted in 170(!) arrests on organized crime charges that could carry life sentences. We need to at least make a passing effort to keep the double standards on ITN under control. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Ad Orientem. They're not guilty of anything – yet. Sca (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I tend to agree with the "we only post convictions" argument in general, but this may be a special case. The very fact of the raid itself is highly notable and newsworthy.  Much as this is crystal balling, it will have a huge impact on the most powerful sporting organization in the world, with or without convictions.  Resolute 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Anything that ridicules soccer is good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking to the nominator that way? And do you support or oppose the proposal? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Noting that I would be in Ad Orientem's view here that we don't post arrests, the fact that the US got extradition rights with the Swiss gov't means there was likely clear evidence to allow the raid and arrests to happen, making this more unusual than typical cases. Add that this is a story that hits two major areas ITN tends to gravite towards: major crimes and sports, and for me, that puts this more as an exception than a rule. The corruption case article could do with more prose but as there seems to be little detail yet, this is probably about right. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * According to CBS news, the Swiss are also conducting a criminal investigation regarding the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup venues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This news is getting massive play worldwide, and for good reason, considering its wide-reaching implications for the world's most popular sport. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to see a bit more context in the corruption case article before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, consensus is to post convictions. A few supports for this nomination should not violate this long-standing consensus, otherwise, what is the point of developing a consensus anyway? Also, information about what is really happening with these arrests is tenuous and tentative at best. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to post what generates consensus. All other "rules" are just statements on what has been done in the past, and there's no rule that we have to do what we did in the past merely because we can make random connections to prior events.  Every single nomination is decided on of its own merits, and the decisions of the past cannot bind the present or the future in any way that prevents us from reaching any particular decision on any particular article for any particular reason we feel like.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To note, the article does need to be updated to reflect the press conference the US officials had this morning outlining all the specific charges, etc. . But I will point out that while I normally am a "post on convictions only", the international scope and the impact on the world's larger sporting event after the Olmypics is pretty damn major to report this point. Convictions will likely take a year or so before that even happens (and the evidence suggests these will all be different trials since the involvement varies with each). --M ASEM  (t) 17:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is real action by law enforcement. As opposed to the Charter-TWC thing, which is nothing except a press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We get it, you don't think business stories should be posted, but it's not necessary to keep bringing it up. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Charter-TWC thing is a phony story. The FIFA thing is real. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose conducting a well-timed raid is exactly what prosecutors do, see perp walk. We should not be highlighting anything until there are convictions. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is one step in what is bound to be a long, slow, and vilifying investigation. We should wait while these allegations are investigated. The more significant (and postable) events would be convictions or a backtrack on world cup host decisions. Mamyles (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the "slow to be sure" brigade have some semblance of a reason not to post, but given the FBI have had Chuck Blazer feeding them information for two years and that we've already seen a number of individuals pleading guilty to money laundering, etc, this event is by far the most notable we'll have for quite some time. If we don't post it, we're doing our global audience (who FIFA represent, more so than the United Nations)  a disservice.  Of course it's difficult to explain to some of non-soccer loving audience the significance, but since we're now talking about the illegality of the 2010 World Cup, coupled with the recent Swiss intervention to investigate the illegitimate awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Qatar and Russia, this is massive global news.  To deny it is simply a demonstration of ignorance.  Which is fine, many people are ignorant, and most times it's not their fault.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world! Also a story that originates in Europe for a change, instead of the usual "What's in America" section. --107.77.94.111 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While probably not a large factor in your opinion, these arrest warrants were actually from the USA, and they will be extradited & tried there. So it both originates and will end in America. Mamyles (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) This is an atrocious argument. Smearing some actual people on the Front Page is a bad idea. It can be posted when there are convictions. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone was arrested is not a "smear", it is a fact. They aren't being tried and convicted in the blurb, and should not be. This is also not a simple arrest, but an international case. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment please note that some of those involved in this case have already admitted guilt and have actively assisted the Feds in the pursuit of global justice against those currently charged. That changes the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Extremely high-profile incident, as Smurrayinchester correctly points out. Additionally, the fact that there have already been racketeering convictions in the case further increases the notability of the ITN candidacy. That said, the "Individual arrests" section of the article is largely uncited (especially if we consider that this falls under WP:BLP), so that would need to be fixed before this can be posted to the front page. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I am usually very much in the camp of those who argue that we should wait for convictions, but we cannot shut our eyes to the reality that this is massive global news and will have a big impact on FIFA and soccer. I don't think BLP prevents us from featuring this on the Main Page, especially considering that none of the defendants are actually named in the blurb. Nobody can dispute that having an article covering the arrests is permissible, and we are simply linking to it from the Main Page so that the many interested readers can look at it. I don't see any BLP problem with that. Neljack (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Post this already there is clear consensus that this is a highly notable, unusual case that deserves to be on ITN. Can an admin get this on? Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis. 209.106.168.167 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Medeis is opposed; are you saying you agree? 331dot (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Medeis reason for not posting, was weak enough to win my support FOR posting this nomination. 209.106.168.167 (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a lot better if you based your opinion on the merits and not the views of others, which doesn't help form consensus on the merits. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: For a major story that began 25 years ago, with hundreds of articles written about it before the raid, (for example in last few years alone,) the article is too brief. The colorful flag-filled charts add little to the overall context of this event, which is covered much better in many of the sources. There's no mention of Loretta Lynch, planning, and no mention of the "institutionalized" corruption going back decades. The article as is focuses on the trees, not the forest, and needs a major expansion IMO. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There certainly might be a larger story and lengthier period to cover, but this current article is specifically about the US charges. You'll note the current article even mentions the concurrent Swiss investigation that has its own article. At some point, there is probably going to be a small group of articles all tied to this corruption issue that covers the 3 decades of problems, but the here and now, it is the US and Swiss charges that are the story. --M ASEM  (t) 00:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except having a "group of articles" about the general issue is not necessary or helpful. This single raid event might be neatly packaged as a brief canned news story. But there's no reason not to open the can now, place the event in context, to make WP more than another daily news site. --Light show (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If this has been an issue for years, where are all the sources that document the cases against FIFA before? And yes, maybe in the future it will only need one article, but again, for ITN, this is the extent of reliable information we have in the here and now. --M ASEM (t) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The key source for the raid explains the context. We don't really need prior cases, just a history of facts to give this single news event more context. Actually, just a few simple sentences from that source adds much more "context" than the entire article has now. For instance, The indictment alleges that, between 1991 and the present, the defendants and their co-conspirators corrupted the enterprise by engaging in various criminal activities, including fraud, bribery and money laundering. Two generations of soccer officials abused their positions of trust for personal gain, frequently through an alliance with unscrupulous sports marketing executives who shut out competitors and kept highly lucrative contracts for themselves through the systematic payment of bribes and kickbacks. The entire source is even PD. --Light show (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The article has been expanded and is sourced regarding any BLP. Black Kite (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Texas–Oklahoma floods

 * Comment I already nominated this below. Everymorning   talk  01:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Charter Communications buying Time Warner Cable
Potentially so, but Comcast's deal fell through after Charter's did the first time. Announcement due in a few hours (discussion can continue), but regulatory hurdles are not so easy either.120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know how this works; we have to wait for this to clear the anti-trust regulations.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Huge transaction &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - Was the (eventually nonexistent) Comcast - TWC deal announced here at the time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - big news now. If it doesn't go through for some reason, that will be big news again.  Despite Walt's comment, we do normally post on announcement (which receives a lot of press), not on regulator approval (which receives little or no press). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Until or if it actually happens, this is nothing but a press release. There's no reason for Wikipedia to give it artificial notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't "give [anything] artificial notability". Wikipedia reflects the notability assigned to things by the real world's reliable sources.  And the real world says the announcement is the most notable part of business deals.  It is also the point of the process ITN has posted in all recent cases that were posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except when you all decide it doesn't matter what "the real world" thinks is newsworthy, which happens time after time here. If your premise were true, there would have been no debate about the sentencing of Tsarnaev to death, for example. By your argument, if it's big news now, should be reported now. No more "wait until it happens" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that for something like Tsarnaev there are four points where the news is big: arrest, conviction, sentencing, and enacting of the sentence (and that's excluding appeals, etc.). ITN recognizes that there's many possible points and to avoid having the story come up over and over again, have opted that the conviction is generally the point where the story gains the most usable encyclopedia coverage. In the case of a business deal, such as this one, there's only one assured point: the announcement, and a potential second one if the FCC rejects the deal. While the actual enacting of the deal (if it goes through) is the finality of the situation, that point gets very little coverage. It is the point of the deal's agreement and announcement. With only one such point, this is the right time to post it. --M ASEM  (t) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Acknowledging that the FCC will be reviewing this, this is a very large detail and the affirmation that both companies have agreed to going forward is the point where it is in the news, regardless of the chance the FCC will block it. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Highly notable, headline-news business deal. Whether it is approved or denied, it's a huge story. Lots of money here, and lots of implications for the telecommunications sector. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the ultimately-nonexistent Comcast-TWC "merger" was also posted here at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and by the way. the heading "Charter Communications buying Time Warner Cable" is a false statement. Change it to "Charter Communications proposal to buy Time Warner Cable" for the sake of accuracy and to avoid the Wikipedia rule against crystal ball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Surely this can't be posted until the FCC approves it? Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Typically this sort of deal is publicized more when it is announced and less when it is actually approved. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Until it's approved, it's nothing but a press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue with such a view of business merger announcements is that it would prevent virtually any business story from being posted to ITN, as the argument given when it is actually approved(and would get less news coverage than when announced) would be that it wasn't in the news. It's news now and should be posted now. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, you folks abhor crystal ball stuff, except when you approve of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing crystal here, it's understanding how the news cycle deals with business mergers. Markets react on the announcement that companies have agreed to merge or be bought out or whatever, but don't react when that actually happens. If the FCC does decide to strike the deal, that'll be news too and the markets will react on that. Crystal balling in these stories would be basing the ITN on the rumor mill on mergers and buyouts. Here, the companies have formally announced the plans, shareholders have agreed, so its not a crystal ball. --M ASEM  (t) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And further, you folks call hot news stories "tabloid", unless you approve of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ — Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources indicated are the BBC, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. If we're considering their reporting to be "tabloid", pull the other one, it certainly has bells on it.  Or alternatively selectively delete posts from editors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For those users who are unable to read, we have a couple of references from American sources such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Funny how those have been overlooked. Perhaps they can just be deleted by some users so they're censored.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have often cited BBC.com here and have been told the news item in question is "tabloid" material. It's funny how BBC's stories' validity are in proportion to the editors who want to push a story such as this one - which isn't actually a story, it's just a "we hope to..." press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "we hope to" story, this is a "we will unless blocked" story- and if blocked, that would also likely be newsworthy and notable. You seem to be arguing for a de facto prohibition of business stories here. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you've forgotten what happened the last time TWC was intending to be merged with another company. Nothing happened. It fizzled. As may this. However, Charlotte will always be George's sister. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So? Every event can possibly change in the future.  What you are proposing is a de facto prohibition of business stories. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable business deal, as stated by others.  331dot (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the title reflects the reliable sources. Having said that, I've recently seen posts removed with no edit summary and entirely against policy so nothing surprises me about some users here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as absurd. Where is the article on the merger itself?  Only on the basis of such an article could we evaluate this.  The 'TW-Comcast merger' has an article, and it didn't happen!  This merger may happen, but it would create one of the larger (not the largest or second largest) conglomerates.  It's being reported as a benefit for internal costs and negotiateing power, not as anything innovative or consumer beneficial. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The current phrasing in the article says "intent to" purchase TWC.  That phrasing is far too vague for me to indicate this is a major story.  I may intend to do many things, but either don't do it or are prevented from doing it.  While I agree that the announcement of the deal is the biggest story, and that waiting for the regulators to tick off boxes is pretty unnewsworthy stuff, I don't see where this is ready yet.  Lets follow the story for a little while longer, and when we can say something more definitive than "intent to", we may be able to post this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that when that point comes, the argument against it will be that it is not in the news, because announcements always get more attention(and have more effects on markets/investors) than the conclusion of the transaction. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jayron32, and suggest the "ready" tag be pulled. Jus  da  fax   21:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to put it back but I don't think it was proper for a clear opponent of this to remove the Ready tag. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing improper about that. Supporters frequently add Ready tags, so it's clear that editors are not required to be uninvolved to add or remove them. Anyone can add one if they think the article is ready to be posted, and anyone can remove one if they think it isn't. Neljack (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I would have preferred a new opponent doing so rather than an involved one. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ready" to me implies "Ready to be posted if there's consensus". Regardless of consensus, various editors here are saying the article or articles need work. If those problems are resolved, it could again be marked "ready". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding of 'ready' is that it is basically a polite version of 'attention needed'. I have no complaint about any of the admins here, nor with the removal (331 can consider that as a "new" oppose I considered removing the ready myself, but dind't), but if we had even more administratorial attention, our trains might better run on time, for which see the German WP, no joke intended. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support If a $55 billion dollar merger doesn't warrant notice on ITN then it's time to just amend the guidelines to exclude all business related news. And let's be frank here. If it's not posted now it wont be posted at all. FCC approval will get a few paragraphs in the business section of the major papers and if it is even nominated again at ITN it would get buried in a blizzard of oppose votes. These things have always been posted at the announcement which is when it's major news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a merger until the FCC says it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated, this won't be posted then. The agreement to merge is news now. AdOrientem is quite correct. You haven't denied that your opinion is a de facto prohibiton of business stories. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be better to say you agree with his opinion, rather than that he is correct. I still oppose since this will neither change the industry nor create the biggest conglomerate.  We've long known TWC has wanted to offload their midlevel management, and that is all this will accomplish.  Downsizing and efficiencies, and buyouts.  That's really not news. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AdO is correct that business stories will not be posted if it is prohibited to do so when they are announced; that is a fact, not opinion, because government approvals rarely get the attention and news coverage the announcement gets. Giving the reasons you feel it is not newsworthy is a valid objection(albeit one I don't share) so I don't criticize it. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is "what kind of announcement". The article does not make clear if an offer has been tendered yet, or if the general idea has been floated.  There's a big difference between saying "You know, it'd be nice if we bought Time Warner Cable" versus "This, in detail, is how we're going to buy Time Warner Cable".  My problem is the language in the target article at Charter_Communications makes it seem less certain than people here are making this out to be.  "Is in the process of acquiring" is different than "Expressed an intent to acquire".  Have the shareholders of TWC accepted the offer?  Have basic details been worked out?  Is this just a random idea or is it a real deal?  The text of the article doesn't yet make that clear.  It probably should.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point in reviewing the sources - some same that the agreement by both companies is there, some say that Charter has expressed its intent implying the agreement with Time Warner is not done. We should have full clarification before even posting this. --M ASEM  (t) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_49#On_when_to_post_business_announcements... It seems the strong consensus was that merger announcements should be posted when they announced, not when they are approved. This type of issue will come up for every merger announcement, so if editors have a problem with them being posted at announcement, it should be discussed as an ongoing issue, and not as a one-off issue relating to this particular merger. Stockst (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a big deal in terms of size of the companies involved and media interest. It might not be approved by the FCC, but that could take months or years to happen. By that time, it won't actually be in the news. Calidum T&#124;C 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support business news doesn't get bigger than that, and the FCC will of course investigate it but it still lwarrents posting. If required you could mention the FCC in the blurb but it seems unnecessary. 65.184.233.49 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue about when to post merger news (at announcement or at government approval) has been previously addressed here:
 * — Stockst (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Who are you, Stockst, prior to this most recent account? Your familiarity with Wikipedia indicates that you've been around a long time, and yet your account is pretty new.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Their edits show a familiarity with business and over a month of activity completely separate from this. We shouldn't bite. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Floydian. Stockst (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, instead of a non-denial denial, how about you answer the question: What account do you normally use? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think people need to assume some good faith here; if anyone has evidence of something improper, take it to the proper forum. Otherwisee, let's move on. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's move on to the fact that this "story" is vaporware. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Two US companies of very little or no international significance whatsoever. Totally US-centric. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated above, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.". 331dot (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - One of the largest business mergers ever, recognized companies beyond the U.S., and certainly in the news outside the U.S. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean BBC, that wouldn't count. Each of BBC editions is accessible to only one region. We are viewing the US edition of the BBC website. We can't access to UK edition. Also, I don't think other languages treat the story as one of top stories. By the way, where else? George Ho (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Canada, Ireland, France. These took me 5 minutes to find. And while we're using US-centric as a reasoning:
 * A heat wave in India kills at least 1,100 people. - Totally India-centic
 * In cricket, Mumbai Indians win the Indian Premier League after defeating Chennai Super Kings in the final. - Also totally India-centric
 * Måns Zelmerlöw (pictured), representing Sweden with the song "Heroes", wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria. - Totally Euro-centric
 * At least 40 people are killed in a shootout in Mexico between Federal police and members of Jalisco New Generation Cartel. - Mexican-centric
 * Ireland becomes the first country to legalise same-sex marriage by constitutional referendum. - Ireland-centric
 * At least 21 people are killed by a suicide bomb in Qatif, Saudi Arabia. - Middle-east-centric
 * Oddly enough, there are no US related stories on ITN, unless you reach for straws and count John Nash. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support like usual, big business news, will be big news even if it get blocked (which is unlikely). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hope to start an article on the merger itself later today. It is that big of a story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Personally, I'm not really a fan of posting this announcement, which means (I guess) that I'm in a good position to say that consensus seems clear, the articles have been adequately updated, waiting too long will make it stale, and an ITN item hasn't been posted in almost 2 days. Posting. I'm not an ITN regular, so I'm not sure if we usually add euro or pound equivalencies, so I went with the proposed blurb wording (no alternate currencies).  If a merger article is started, someone can switch it out for the current bolded items when deemed ready. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Kenya ambush
If you ever bothered to read beyond your prejudged notions you will see 1. I cannot create the article on Wikipedia 2. Beyond your one-track indoctrinated mind, the sources say there was a bomb that wounded and then a rescue mission was ambushed, which is where the casualties came from (read the local source above).120.62.18.131 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) — 120.62.18.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose lack of article and an item on the BBC is suggesting it's more like one wounded rather than twenty killed. Not notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks aside, I know you can't create the article unless you bother registering an account (which is free and will stop people tracking you via your IP address), or you could request its creation at WP:AFC. Either way that's your problem.  But I don't actually believe the event itself is even notable enough for an article;  perhaps a one-liner in 2015 in Kenya?  There still appears to be no reliable source that verifies your blurb.  It's not exactly the Garissa University College attack is it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose; aside from no article to evaluate,(I understand the IP user cannot create one, but that isn't our issue) the Kenyan government is saying none of its officers have been killed(according to the Al-Jaz article) and this is apparently just a claim by a terrorist group. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not a news service. ITN blurbs must link to an article. Thems the rules. Create an account so you can create articles or don't. Either is fine with me. But please don't blame other editors for your choices. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment related issue is Garissa University College attack. Could be DUE if the article is created. Would want IP user to create an account then edit the article. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our reliable sources are indicating that no one died (one wounded) and that the claims of 20 deaths are only by the group that initiated the ambush. A non-story for WP. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment we now have an article which has one single sentence about the ambush, i.e. that an ambush took place, and heaps of background boilerplate. There is nothing else in the article specific to this event.  There is no evidence that the original claim and blurb are correct.  This is a dead duck.  I would very much expect the article to be deleted in due course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is notable enough to go on this list, not ITN. 117.192.182.118 (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RD: Mary Ellen Mark

 * Support pending article updates Importance is established. The prose of the article is fine but the allocades section needs to have sources for each aware or link to a blue-linked article where confirmation can be found. (And I was able to find a useful free image to add to the article of her). --M ASEM (t) 23:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose that she photographed demonstrations lends her no credit. Let's see one iconic pulitzer winning reason why this should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Subject has numerous awards and was extremely prominent in her field. She more than meets the criteria in ITND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem notability appears clear yet article is very poorly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Lots of awards, published in a lot of noteworthy publications, exhibited worldwide. Notability seems clear. Article looks okay, with maybe a few sources that need to be lined up here and there, but nothing egregious. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - In my view, a fine ITN RD candidate. Notability is clear. Article may need a bit of cleanup, but as Kudzu1 observes, nothing is immediately obvious as a reason not to post this to RD. Jus  da  fax   07:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from the incredibly weak sourcing? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - awards section needs sourcing before this can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a source for those last night. Looks like it has been removed. Hmm. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history if you were sourcing to her biography from her own page, that's a poor source since people can make up claims about themselves (not that I'm suggesting she had done). The removal appears correctly done. --M ASEM (t) 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: per masem.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Texas–Oklahoma floods

 * Weak Oppose This same storm dropped a tornado that struck a Mexican town over the border with similar casualties. If we are going to report this we cannot omit the Mexico side. (See BBC's take ). That said, this is also standard summer storm season - floods and torandoes are to be expected, and this is far from the damage that some torando runs in recent years have caused. --M ASEM (t) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait to see full impact. Right now, while tragic for those affected, it is hard as yet to judge the full impact.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose parochial story which, among other things, "caused minor damage to a mobile home". Wikipedia is not a repository for localised news of inconveniences to some trailer park folks. The fact we had so much opposition to hundreds dying in India (now over a thousand) would indicate that this is a minor and local news issue in the US, commonplace due to the weather systems there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Front page coverage on BBC.com, which legitimizes its importance (as discussed earlier). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment of course a support would indicate that a user has not even read the article in question which has an orange-level maintenance tag. But that is hardly surprising as this is stirring up nationalistic feelings.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . Clearly not very significant coverage outside the United States.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   20:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're saying front page of BBC.com is not significant? Or is it only significant when you all have pre-decided that it is? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until full impact is known. Right now this seems relatively minor(while historic for the affected area, it isn't nationally I think). If ever posted, it should indeed include information on storm effects in Mexico(like the aforementioned tornado). 331dot (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Potential support per Masem if tied in as one or as related storm systems. We usually have one or two tornado breakouts this time of year.  Notable ones kill far more than five.  The nomination as posted is minor, but if this becomes a greater complex or can be tied together it would be blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not saying I support this but the total death toll (between the US and Mexico) is over 20.  331dot (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's kinda my point, }. I think this could be a shoe-in nom if we had an article that tied in all the related events over several days, rather than just the one limited one. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose No evidence that this is a really major disaster. The article has really major shortcomings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to weak support on improvements in the article and more extensive information concerning the scope of the flood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support once further expansion is done. Been doing my best to update and expand this article but I have relatively limited time at the moment. An earlier concern brought up about the Mexico tornado has been addressed by its addition into the article (part of the same overall storm system). Record-breaking floods have occurred/are occurring in many areas of Texas and Oklahoma with more rain on the way. As brought up by the nominator, this is a historic flood event for the region and a deadly one. At least 28 fatalities have been confirmed between Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, with about 40 other people unaccounted for or missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked Attention Needed, will someone look at s' updation? It's a bit too late for me. μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Definitely not ITN-worthy. But it is getting all the attention as it is American news. Don't think this ever got posted. 117.221.122.147 (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really a fair comparison. That article wasn't created until September 2012, roughly two months after the main events of the disaster according to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those floods lasted for several months, from July up to October. Here's a quote from a news source: "Flooding started in Plateau State in central Nigeria in July, spread through Borno, Cross River, Ebonyi, Nassarawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Katsina and Kebbi states in August, hit Taraba Benue, Niger, Kaduna and Kano in September, before affecting Delta and Bayelsa states in September and October." 117.221.122.147 (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear that anyone bothered to nominate it for ITN. Only one person really edited it while the floods were ongoing. Not everything gets noticed and nominated for ITN appropriately. The 2012 Nigeria floods appear to be a case where there was not enough media coverage that it caught on to people who frequent ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Dozens dead in Mexico and the US, historic flooding, over a dozen tornados, with an F3 killing 13 in Mexico. The article name seems local but the effects range over an area that would be widely international if it happened in Europe, and the deaths in Mexico are indeed part of the article. Suggest, , ,  etc., reconsider their votes. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll support the ITN for the article that does not limit the scope of the storm to just the situation north of the border; I know the news is not helping with a very US-centric take with the focus on damage in Texas. We have to remember that weather doesn't following geopoliticial lines. --M ASEM (t) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article has improved considerably since my initial wariness. Suggest a possible change of blurb to be more encompassing.  Something like "Floods in southern U.S. and northern Mexico cause widespread property damage and leave at least XX dead" or something like that.  Good job to all those who improved the article text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have proposed an alt blurb. The name of the article itslef is still odd, given half the dead are in Mexico.  But we don't post based on article names.  In any case there are at least 31 killed, with over a dozen tornados, and historic flooding.  Comment by "waits" such as  and  would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The naming and approach of the article needs to be fixed before posting. ITN's purpose is, in part, to guide new editors to articles they may be able to contribute on, and that's why we look for the quality of the article to make sure they can contribute in a fair manner. With the article currently named and geared to the US centric issues with this storm, that's not going to work for new editors. --M ASEM  (t) 02:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Although this is a calamity for the people affected – and although some of the oppose rhetoric above is overdrawn – there's much human-caused blood, gore and destruction in the world that exceeds the magnitude of this natural disaster. Sca (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, providing the linked article discusses the effects on both sides of the border. Resolute 13:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it is a major issue that the article pretty much ignores the impact in Mexico in the text, while plugging for global warming (!). I suppose that's really Texal, not Global Warming.  I may be able to get to it in a couple of hours. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support this if the article covered the entire issue, including Mexico. At the moment it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is going to need at least a day's worth of work not including just adding the Mexican info, the sources for which can't just be cut and pasted. If someone's got the time and interested I have pasted the Mexican tornado info onto the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Tunisian military base rampage

 * We absolutely need an article first. It does not help to nominate when there is no article. (Remember, ITN is about highlight articles of topics that happen to be in the news, not to be a news ticker). --M ASEM (t) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still searching. If I can't find one, I'll create one (as I did before). By evening EST, we'll have a pretty decent article. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 18:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment well, according to this article, seven soldiers have been killed and ten injured, the "shooter" has been killed too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2015 Tunis barracks shooting. Needs improvements. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not considered a terrorist attack, and even if it was, not comparable to the Bardo National Museum attack. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment article is not receiving updates, doesn't look like there's any followup news reports on this. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Barnstar a lot of good work by The Herald, but even then probably not ITNworthy. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RD: Bill O'Herlihy
*Oppose on article quality alone. He clearly looks to be one of the most well-known broadcasters of his nation - but the sourcing and general article quality (sidebar, image and so on) is sadly lacking. Challenger l (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality: Article has significant BLP and sourcing problems and will need serious improvement before it is ready to post. Notability, however, is clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability and oppose on quality. Not seeing this individual anywhere on any news outlets I follow, I know it counts for nothing but having watched countless "FIFA WCs" I can testify to that I have never heard this individual commentating, and finally the article, as noted by Kudzu1, is bereft of suitable referencing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RTE broadcaster - not that it diminishes his work, but I would not call that "all over". I suppose if top of the field is Irish sportscasting, he is up there somewhere. Mainly as a presenter for these programs, rather than ingame commentary (like the BBC's Des Lynam). Fuebaey (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality alone. Article is far from sufficient.  Surely more can be said about a person whose life was this important.  If the article were expanded to a reasonable coverage of his life and work, it would be fine for RD.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like sourcing has been taken care of. Is it ready? Challenger l (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert sentenced

 * Weak support - I'm iffy on the fact this is pretty much a slap on the wrist in terms of the type of sentence (compared to 20 yrs or the death penalty), but it is also a case against a nation's former head of state. --M ASEM (t) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The President of Israel is head of state, not the PM. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what you're getting at but per that article " The position is largely a ceremonial figurehead role,[1] with executive power effectively being exercised by the prime minister. " We're talking a person that formally held that position of power, so this is significant. --M ASEM (t) 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that there is significance here. I studied political science so I can't help pointing out a technicality like that. :) 331dot (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This and the earlier conviction are both up for appeal. When he serves time as former head of government it'll be notable. (This is not his first conviction either).120.62.18.131 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not updated and indicates an appeal will take place immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus the article contains a number of orange maintenance tags which I'm sure the supporters will address, but until then, this should not even be considered for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Nothing when compared with death sentence of Morsi or 20 of Nasheed or some eight (don't recall exactly) of Mubarak. That too in corruption, a less serious issue in comparison of slaughter and espionage and betrayal. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Masem. Probably significant enough to be posted, but it's borderline. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Herald. If recently, former heads of government have been sentenced to death or to likely life terms for charges such as treason, this is very light indeed. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support per the reasons given. The conduct, if I read it right, did not have to do with his duties as PM, but it is still notable enough for me to support a little. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclined to support, which other stories about this have we posted? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I would prefer something like "Olmert-Talansky affair" to be a separate article. ITN has had stories on former leaders of Egypt and other countries sentenced for crimes. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on how I'm reading this, in the case of the Egyptian trials, they were all connected cases; this appears to be a result of Olmert acting alone - or to the point where he was the one responsible for any crimes. As such, there really is not need for a separate page on this situation. --M ASEM (t) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the article's talk page this matter has not yet been posted. I simply cannot imaging we would not post the jailing of a former EU, Commonwealth, or US head of state.  I have hidden a section requiring citations (perhaps it should be removed entirely), the rest of the article looks fine. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the main part of the article is still not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely notable enough for ITN inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment have you read the article? It's not updated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once any shortcomings in the article are addressed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment okay, so maintenance tags notwithstanding, apparently a sentence like "Sentencing was set for May, and his lawyers advised he would appeal" means this article is updated? None of you have read this article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality of update only. The only update was a single sentence to the lead.  Someone should be able to create a paragraph or two in the actual article text.  Right now, the Wikipedia article does not contain enough new content to put up on the main page.  Also, if we do post this, we should pipelink the section where the new information is added.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand this as a policy position,, but what would the actual update be? He was escorted from his house to prison, and interrogated as to whether he was, or had ever bean, a heemosexual?  Would it improve things to post the opinion of various people like Netanyahu regarding the sentence?  The effect is another wait vote, although every prior wait vote has said we'll post this when he's convicted, sentenced,... μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be treated the same way as the Charter-TWC thing. It's "news now". If the article needs fixing, the complainants should fix it. But it's factual, which is more than can be said about the latest TWC merger attempt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has a 20 paragraph article on the topic. Surely we can do better than 20 words.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, all the supporters are content to just do absolutely nothing, which is probably wise given the lack of experience most of them have in improving mainspace articles. A shame though.  This could have been a winner.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article has now been minimally updated, at least, and should be in fair shape for posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Polish presidential election, 2015

 * Support when the article Andrzej Duda has info currently on the Polish one. Mentioned it on WP:POLAND -- Aronzak (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah..typo..-The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 05:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Be the change...add it..120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - important political news.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  Support  – Swing back to the conservative-cum-populist Law and Justice Party of the Kaczyński brothers seems ominous for EU champions. Sca (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This does look significant on a number of different levels. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready for main page..-The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support posting: Good work on this, everyone. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Before posting, I'd be happy to see some "Reaction" section in the election article. At the moment, it's just the result table. We can do better. --Tone 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article in current state - there is minimal prose in the article and zero prose on the results/reaction. Article does not meet ITN quality standards as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality alone. Amount of prose is very insufficient for a main-page linked article.  Substantial prose expansion would be needed to bring this article up to snuff.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and mark ready, a three paragraph expansion and no tags, ITNR, absurd not to post without any tags to contesr and overwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pospiesz się! Sca (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the standard isn't how much it has been expanded, but rather how much coverage there is on the news item and that is still basically zero. The entirety of the prose on the election results is two sentences in the lead saying Duda won and it was close.  That is fine for the lead but the body of the article should have a full paragraph on the results and at least one on reactions.  That is what is normally expected of elections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article has been updated with prose for the polling, results, and reactions sections. Feel free to add more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree this looks much better in sourcing and prose, and should be ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 20:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready: I see no reason why this shouldn't be posted at this stage. Consensus is for posting, the article has been improved to address concerns about lack of prose, and this is starting to run the risk of getting stale. Let's do it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - thanks for the improvements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Suggest blurb be modified to say, Opposition candidate Andrzej Duda of the Law and Justice Party is elected as P president of Poland. Sca (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed "as". The uppercase "P" is correct, per our house style.  —David Levy 09:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Anne Meara

 * Oppose A long and noteworthy career, but I wouldn't call her top of the field, or suggest that her contributions were that important to her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree there's a general lack of top of the field importance, and also the article is not in great state for posting. --M ASEM (t) 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Iffy - Award-winning, and half of a famous comic duo, but inactive in the field for quite a while, in contrast to husband Jerry and son Ben, who have continued to have high visibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose: I like her work, but as Bugs notes she was only half a duo and she hasn't performed as such for a long time. And given that obits had to explain to the young'uns that she is chiefly known to them for being Ben Stiller's mother, I don't think she makes the cut. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Decent article and someone whose death many media outlets have at least noted -- although I would agree she misses the RD criteria for being at the top of her field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note about her being at the "top of her field": the relevant criteria only says "very important in his/her field," which is arguably more inclusive. Whether or not she is most known today for being Ben Stiller's dad is also irrelevant because her fame was established long ago. Calidum T&#124;C 01:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support obvious. One can presumably oppose this if one's to young to remember her career, bur she was huge in her day, and is certainly not just her husband's wife. More than 3-dozen movie credits and 3-dozen tv series, all separate from her standup bit with he husband Jerry Stiller, or her son, Ben Stiller. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This should be a no brainer. Subject was a very prominent person in the entertainment industry and more than meets the qualifications in WP:ITND. I do not understand the oppose votes at all. In what way does this person not meet our standards? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The opposed votes are based on people born since 1990 and outside the Americas. Her filmography alone speaks for itself, outside her relationship to her husband and son. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't fall into that category, and I still think this is not RD material. A large filmograph is not equivalent to importance, as that describes many B-list actors today, doing a bunch of bit parts to work slowly through the ranks. Even Jerry Stiller is hard to qualify as an important figure in television comedy given other names that launched that era. And I really think we should avoid looking at family/married relationships here; it should be the virtue of the person themselves, not who they were related to. --M ASEM  (t) 02:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You don't get four Emmy Award nominations without being important in the entertainment business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. Emmy nominations are just nominations. It suggests there is some potential importance but that's not the only thing. Also, this information is woefully lacking on the article if the Emmys are so important (only one Emmy is mentioned). --M ASEM (t) 03:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The opposed votes are based on people born since 1990 and outside the Americas" Um, I graduated from college in 1990; I was born, raised and have never lived anywhere else but North America. And I stand by the reasoning for my oppose vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No awards, no objective indications that she meets the death criteria. She appears to be exactly the sort of B-list celebrity that we routinely (and correctly) decline to post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BW. No awards meet notability criteria. No a top of the field. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 06:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose long career does not equate to being important in the field. The article is reasonably well written but very poorly referenced so is unfit for inclusion in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hasn't won any notable awards, article is in poor shape and does not give any indication of importance. Famous partner and/or children is not relevant. Disclaimer: I wasn't born in the 90s, but I was born outside the US. So clearly, according to Medeis, my vote can be ignored. Structural bias only works one way.... 82.21.7.184 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to ongoing] 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis

 * Support This is a major story with lots of news coverage but where it would be hard to formulate a blurb based on a specific event, so it fits Ongoing well. Neljack (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Attention being giving to this now, suggests this is the time to post even if, say, more mass graves are discovered. --M ASEM (t) 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem, who is right here. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 06:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - pretty big Asian issue which has come to prominence recently. Also, an international issue involving multiple countries. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ongoing it is. --Tone 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Monaco F1 Grand Prix

 * Support as ITN/R..-The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 12:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as it is the most important GPs of all but because the Indy 500 is on the same day, would it be best to package this with that as a double blurb? Donnie Park (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once results are in. High-profile event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment results are in and article reflects that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. A combined blurb is an option when the Indy results are in. --Tone 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] India heat wave

 * Support notable event, decent enough article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should this be listed under "ongoing"? The temperatures don't look like they'll come down for a while. 61.3.106.71 (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read they are expected to fall in June during monsoon season. Brandmeistertalk  12:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This doesn't appear to be getting major coverage (it isn't on the BBC News India page, for example) and, however it is calculated, I don't think it's very clear how significant 335 deaths from heat is in a hot country where 10 million people die each year. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now on the BBC homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – By standards of the American West, temps reported, while certainly high, aren't unheard of. (Highest temp on record in Phoenix, Ariz. = 122 °F (50 °C); Las Vegas, Nevada = 117 F (47 C); Sacramento, Calif. = 115 (46 C). Sca (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's a dry heat. The first two are in deserts. 205.197.242.151 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ever driven across AZ & NM in an un-air-conditioned convertible in mid-July? Whew! Sca (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but I've walked in high sun at 103 and 15% humidity and I don't think anything less than 106 or 107 is too hot. As long as it's that dry. Now on the Persian Gulf it just switches back and forth between wet heat and dry heat all summer (up to 108 and 124 respectively), the seawater is 98, sandstorms can reach several meters visibility, the heat index has reached 172 when scientists thought about 160 was the limit for Earth, people get cabin fever, open their cars with oven mitts and drive with them until the wheel cools down. No place can beat that. 205.197.242.151 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Support Following FormerIP's rationale, 300-some in a country with more than 1 billion people doesn't seem like a significant factor. --M ASEM  (t) 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that if you use a simple ratio, this is very small. What ratio would you consider sufficient to post, e.g. 3,000, 300,000?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no hard number, but one has to consider the number relative to the main population and the rate. If this is 300-some deaths from a 1billion+ country over 2 months, that's below the average daily mortality rate there. On the other hand, something like the ebola outbreak took 20,000+ over a few months from a small population over several countries and was potentially threatening more. --M ASEM  (t) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think we all understand that. So you're looking for, what 10,000 deaths here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're asking for a number I refuse to commit to, because it does really depend on the coverage. I'm judging by the coverage of the press, to a degree. Consider the lack of significant details of the articles on the heat wave here - the NYT source is just a paragraph statement from the AP; the Times of India article is more documenting the forecast that the focus on the death toll. I would hope that if the number got into the 1,000 or higher within a single calendar season that the press would take more notice of the matter. --M ASEM (t) 18:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your answer, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't actually have a baseline here, so the big question is 335 compared to what? Unfortunately, Google wasn't my friend on this, but I did find that the number of heat related deaths in the US averaged at 618 per year in the decade up to 2010 . We seem to be talking about 6 weeks of Indian heatwave, plus you need to adjust for population, so that 618 would be equivalent to about 285 Indian deaths. That's less that 335, but more than the 230 quoted by the NYT. Comparisons like that can be dangerous. The US definition of "heat-related" may cover a lot more things. There may be a lot of deaths that go completely unrecorded in India. So the comparison doesn't really prove anything, but it may help to illustrate why this isn't necessarily a major international news story. Formerip (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting analysis, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Switching to support per more recent articles, getting the media coverage that would expect if this was a severe threat and not just typical. --M ASEM (t) 14:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not that notable, insignificant coverage. Faizan (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's pretty unusual for 330 people to die in a few weeks and the temperatures have touched a record high in many places. Significant coverage in Indian sources and somewhat less in international ones. Definitely ITN worthy.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Large death toll. This isn't business as usual, despite the suggestions to the contrary. Neljack (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Neljack.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Seemingly an unusual event for India. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and marked ready, scorching heat is devilish in itself when it consumes such a high death toll, even if the country have a population of one trillion or googolplex. Sometimes Masem puts up theories which are too hard to convince conscience. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 06:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a standard seasonal weather pattern as you can find similar news stories for every recent year, e.g. Anger rises as India swelters under record heatwave for last year; India Scorched by Blistering Heatwave for 2013; Hundreds die in Indian heatwave for 2010; &c. What's happening is that it's getting hot because summer is coming.  The heat then causes the monsoon, which breaks the heatwave.  Andrew D. (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment death toll now over 500 with reports in the BBC and The Guardian highlighting that this is hotter and more deadly than the 2010 heatwave. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This isn't a usual occurrence, and lack of coverage by BBC seems illogical to decline this. It isn't a seasonal occurrence, nor do 300+ people die every year of the same reason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support/comment - To say deaths in India don't matter because a lot of people live there is pretty disgusting and also illogical. If the country was divided into several with smaller land chunks and thus less population, one of the new countries would have a much higher "ratio" and the significance would be exactly the same. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't stress it. Of course temperatures have been recorded higher in the US, of course there are so many Indians that a few thousand dead don't count for much.  That's your systemic bias, right there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: French Open
Olympics (and probably soccer WC) was posted here. In any case, nothing is set in stone for the sake of it. I wasn't mentioning season long annual events either though.120.62.25.15 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ongoing was never intended for sports events in progress. The same argument could be made for posting any sport whose playoffs (or even whole season) is in progress and Wikipedia is not a ticker for news or sports.  It was intended for events/happenings whose incremental updates might not be enough to post individually but collected together merit posting. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ongoing was developed with certain major sports events played over weeks/months in mind, specifically the Olympics and the World Cup. I'm not saying this is an appropriate event for ongoing (and I think I would be against it because its an annual thing, not as limited as Olympics/World Cup, and far less of an audience draw), but appropriate sports events can be listed at Ongoing. --M ASEM (t) 12:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the Olympics and World Cup are just about the only events that would qualify(and the Cup was boldly posted; consensus was not very clear). The French Open is an annual event for one sport, very different than the Olympics and Cup(either multisport every four years or long-term event with wide interest every four years) 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Olympics and FIFA WC have a wider audience and appeal. They're held once in four years compared to four grand slams a year (which gives us 16 tennis entries for the same period of 4 years). 61.3.107.224 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose not a sports ticker, I believe we once had the FIFA World Cup on there which was boldly posted, but since that's once every four years and attracts a global audience of over a billion, it didn't seem quite so bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I closed this as SNOW, which undoubtedly it was. This is not going to get posted as ongoing, but as a blurb, that too, after June 6th. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only final results - No need for day-by-day posting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Indy 500

 * Oh, Where is the 2015 Monaco Grand Prix? 61.245.25.6 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a quiz? Monaco. Formerip (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try, dad.  Zappa  24  Mati   22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't post each and every Grand Prix. Only the final champion..-The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you know that Monaco Grand Prix is also on ITN/R, The Herald? 61.245.25.6 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who said otherwise??-The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 12:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support once results are in. High-profile event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose most of the article is in the incorrect tense, waiting for an update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Upon the results' addition. WP:ITN/R candidate.  Zappa  24  Mati   22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, and note that the blurb might also be combined with the Monaco Grand Prix blurb. The account of the race itself needs references, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I've been through and think I've changed the tense as required throughout, but the main bulk of the article is unreferenced, it could easily be original research, and is completely unverifiable. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't even happen. It's strictly a rumor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update marked ready. Consensus cleared as the article is fixed. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? The article is clearly not fixed, as the entire "Race" section is completely unreferenced, while the practice and qualifying sections also have few if any inline citations. This is obviously not ready, unless ITN has absurdly low standards for what it puts on the Main Page. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment not ready in any way, shape or form. No references in the race section at all.  Plenty to fix – please fix the article before you mark it as Ready again, because continuing to make such obviously false claims in order to score points in a contest is completely unacceptable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely not ready - I agree with TRM, most of the article is unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, as I came here to ask why this isn't already on the Main Page. Furthermore, linking the article from the main page will help to drive reference-adding traffic. – voidxor (talk &#124; contrib) 20:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how ITN works; you have it backwards. Articles are posted after they are updated, not posted on ITN to solicit updates/edits.  Spencer T♦ C 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. The article is in good shape and the race is ITNR. Calidum T&#124;C 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this is being continually marked as ready when the originally cited issues (no referencing in the "race" section still stand).  Spencer T♦ C 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - why isnt this on the main page already. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cannes Film Festival

 * Support Obv. pending updates, main article is in great shape, hopefully the same standard will be on the winning film's article too. And ITN/R.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Winner is announced (Dheepan) but that article is woefully poor even if it is not the key target link. --M ASEM (t) 18:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose both the main article (which doesn't appear to be bold linked, why not?) and the award article are inadequately updated for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Indian Premier League

 * Support Cricket event of high notability. Also listed in ITN/R. But the bolded article should be of the final. The blurb should be something like: In cricket, the Mumbai Indians/Chennai Super Kings win the Indian Premier League after defeating the Mumbai Indians/Chennai Super Kings in the Final. - Dee  03  08:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tweaked and added the altblurb with two bold titles (as done for World Cup this March). -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 09:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People watching this and not the New Zealand massive triumph at Lord's and French Open? Former should end today after tea or tomorrow by lunch...120.62.25.15 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * England getting thrashed is nothing new, and tennis is boring anyway. So we'll stick to T20 cricket :) 61.3.106.71 (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't quite work out that way, eh?!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, it really didn't work out that way, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, "New Zealand massive triumph at Lord's" and "England getting thrashed". Beautiful!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Not a big following outside of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzsmith (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Right here a few miles down the road = street party. What a night, what a week! #aamchiMumbai!120.62.40.242 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support biggest t20 league in the world 1.39.60.86 (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support notable tournament and ITN/R. Regards,   theTigerKing   16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but ultimately incorrect and a pretty pointless comment which is actually untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment can anyone point me to the prose update in a suitably referenced article that covers this news story? If it exists, I'll post it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done (I think). - Dee  03  03:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] John Forbes Nash, Jr.

 * Support per nom. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for prompt posting. Extraordinary and notable individual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is well-developed and referenced. A Nobel laureate whose work had a lot of impact in the real world and is much more well-known than most Nobel laureates - i.e., is well-known as well as notable. Taknaran (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. No question on importance, article has a few tiny issues but far from levels to prevent posting to ITN. --M ASEM (t) 14:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. John Forbes Nash had a great impact in the fields of mathematics, economics and even mental health. He and his wife Alicia were the subject of the book and film, A Beautiful Mind. 174.88.144.185 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (this is AstroHurricane001, and this is the only time I will ever leave a comment as an anonymous user)
 * Comment. All the news stories I have seen regarding this call him "John Nash". Formerip (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment An RD definitely should go up, but as I'm reading more, he and his wife were killed in a car crash (as passengers in a taxi). While they were both in their 80s, this still seems to me like a possible blurb. I suggest discussing that separately, noting the RD has clear consensus at the moment. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe blurb it with his recent Abel Prize win with Louis Nirenberg? I would have nominated it separately, since it is on ITN/R, but unfortunately this event inevitably overshadows that. Fuebaey (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Abel was announced in March and was noted at ITNR. (I did check on this as I had the same idea) - last week was just the formal ceremony. --M ASEM (t) 14:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. A rare individual who was both a giant in his field and a public figure due to the Hollywood biopic of his life. Girona7 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready, looks to be updated. Unfortunate death. Brandmeistertalk  14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Full Blurb Notable personality and the subject of a Notable movie. Unfortunate event. Please post it now. Regards,   theTigerKing   16:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly no opposition on notability, but does nobody have issues with how much of the text is unsourced but me? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With such a notable death, I think the state of the article is less of an important factor than getting this up quickly. Added visibility will hopefully prompt others to improve the article. Incidentally, I could go either way with a blurb, but I do think the RD should go up right away. Girona7 (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing an issue with appropriate density of sourcing. There's only one para that's on the longer side that has two cites at the end to support it, but that's fair. (There's also a long block quote but that has the correct single ref) --M ASEM (t) 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Full blurb Nobel Prize winner in 1994 for Nash equilibrium, Abel Prize winner in 2015 (I believe the first to win both?) and portrayed in Beautiful Mind in 2001, not many scientists are more widely known to the public. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting RD for the time being. Can be upgraded to a full blurb, if consensus is such. --Tone 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Full blurb warranted given circumstances, no other living mathematician was a household name. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb as he occupies iconic place in modern history of mathematics and the popular culture.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Blurbs for deaths should always meet a very high threshold. Fairly or unfairly, this is someone best known for being portrayed in a film, which is reflected in the coverage of his death. I don't think the manner of the death matters. Road traffic accidents are common and unremarkable. Formerip (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb most famous (realistically) because he was noted in the movie, top of his field etc so suitable for RD, but not a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Sudden, tragic end to a beautiful mind (to borrow a phrase). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, my eyes actually bugged when I saw the news. Also, wife died too, so a blurb is needed. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The eyes have it! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb - Lots of recognition. Not just a major achievement in his field, but in his personal life as well. An inspiration. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment happy to post blurb based on recent voting, would be helpful if one or more those ardent supporters fixed the issues currently noted on the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Oppose Blurb A noteable death, but not, I'd wager, a "household name" in most households. 86.154.12.112 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb' pretty much the only mathematician (or any non-peace/literature nobel winner) that is a "household name". 107.72.164.75 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD A very important mathematician, but I doubt anybody would be pushing for a blurb if it weren't for A Beautiful Mind. To my mind, being portrayed in a famous film is not a good reason for posting a blurb. Neljack (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Nobel prize, Abel, highly influential, unexpected and tragic death, one of the VERY few mathemeticians any layman knows the name of. Really as obvious as it gets, we've got every checkbox filled.  "If it weren't for all those things that made him famous, nobody would know who he is" is the most spurious reasoning I can really think of not to blurb this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Won both the Nobel Prize and its equivalent in mathematics.  And yes, he was the subject of an Oscar winning biopic.  Easily the peer of popes and presidents. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb for many of the reasons listed above, but also because this is someone who the average reader will take an interest in based on a blurb that are not served by the RD mention. What issues are left on the articles? -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  06:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Easily the peer of popes and presidents, but we don't post every pope or president. His death received respectable coverage worldwide, but nowhere near the level of the likes of Mandela - BBC had live coverage of Mandela's funeral, which was attended by most of the world leaders. Nash's death is simply not on the same level. He is notable, his death is notable, his death is exactly what RD was intended for and that is where it should go.No longer a penguin (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind: he and his wife were killed in a car accident (as passengers in a taxi), not simply passing from old age. Only a week prior did he travel to get the Abel prize - he was still very active. So the death is unusual akin to Robin Williams. --M ASEM (t) 14:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - surely one of the most well known modern mathematicians due to the film on him. Nobel/Abel Prize confirm his scientific credentials. Unnatural death, too. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Support RD. There is no question that this person meets the criteria for ITND. However obits are very rarely posted in the ITN blurb section and the bar there is extremely high. I think Robin Williams got in because he was a global celebrity and a giant in his field. But I honestly don't think this gentleman falls into the same category. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted full blurb. Consensus in favor of full blurb.  Spencer T♦ C 19:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mexican shootout

 * Support in principle: See, this is the kind of news that the Waco shootout wasn't. Law enforcement officers were hurt and killed, a notable drug cartel was involved, and the shootout could signal a new phase in the Mexican federal government's willingness to confront cartels. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sit on your pointy lecturing, Kudzu, it's rude and irrelevant to the nomination, the biker shootout was the biggest ever in the US, this Mexican dustup is par for the course. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah...see the death lot. Four times of it...-The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 18:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My intent is not to lecture, but to explain my reasoning for supporting this while opposing that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to accept that, but when you start of a comment with "See,..." it sounds like daddy telling sonny boy. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That being said, it goes without saying that the target article will need to be drastically expanded and improved if we are to post it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Telegraph: "More than 100,000 people have died in clashes between the drug gangs and security forces since the start of 2007" That's about 1,000 a month, over 30 a day. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, but most of the incidents in the conflict involve low counts. 40 dead in the single shootout is notable. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support assuming the article is improved, a huge loss of life between gangs fighting it out. Gun violence (alone) in the US kills around 30,000 per year, that's about 80 per day.  This is a huge story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable event in the Mexican Drug War; even though the conflict has left over 100,000, most of the incidents involve low body counts. 40+ dead in a single event is pretty unheard of for Mexico. In addition, this incident is part of the major crackdown of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in recent months. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above unsourced assertions that this is unique is simply false and just a cursory reading of the sources 44 killed in 2012 prison riot or the 43 dead at the hands of gangs and the authorities 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping and other shootouts involving the arrest of drug kingpins show that violence on this scale in Mexico is hardly unique or even uncommon. Maybe 40 makes the notability threshold, but the reckless disregard of the facts and the comparisons with the US are shameful. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are still quite notable events. The incident of the 43 missing students is likely to affect Mexico's presidencies in the years to come. The implications of that case were huge. Aside from that incident, there have not been major events like that in this current administration. The closest one was the mass murder in Tlatlaya, which is one of the biggest scandals the Army has had in years. In terms of cartel–security forces clashes, this is a very notable event. In addition, this event is important because its part of a series of confrontations the Mexican government has had with the Jalisco New Generation. Their leader, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes ("El Mencho"), is arguably Mexico's most-wanted. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 21:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This is [just] older than the Saudi bombing below.120.62.25.15 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis. Any event that stirs up this kind of drama is definitely  post-worthy. 109.252.243.234 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant body count for a single incident. As noted, the currently unrated article needs work, which appears to be in progress. Jus  da  fax   22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose We just said no to the mass gang shooting in Texas that ended with ten dead and more than 170(!) people facing organized crime charges that could land them in prison for life. Unless the only criteria for ITN is now a body count the Texas shooting was FAR more news worthy than this. I vehemently disagreed with that decision, but the precedent having been put in place I think the bar is now VERY high for these kinds of stories getting onto ITN. Under the circumstances I don't see how we can say yes to this without proclaiming a massive double standard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support The Mexican drug war has been bloody, and large #s of deaths in incidents like this are not unusual (and even here, where only one ot the deaths were a law enforcement agent, the rest the drug rings). But it has been pointed out that this is perhaps the largest know such event and has rekindled attention that there is a drug war problem in Mexico. --M ASEM  (t) 01:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the background is more interesting than the shooting itself - estimates are of 106,000 killed between 2006 and 2014. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the anti-American cancer here, I think we should post ongoing conflicts like this to an ongoing ticker, violence in: Mexico, Yemen, Iraq, Syria. Making each of these "yet another mass killing" items a posting when one happened in the same place last month is ridiculous, as well as, of course, needlessly contentious.  Only things like the Hebdo, Breivik, Waco and Iguala massacres, which are unprecedented, should be posted. BTW, why is the Iguala massacre still called a "kidnapping" while no one doubts the students were all killed, and no ransom demands have been made? μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They won't call the Iguala incident a "mass murder" because there are legal barriers that prevent the government from doing that. Only one student has been confirmed dead, and until the government shows that the students were indeed killed, they are categorized as "disappeared". Legally, you cannot be confirmed dead unless (1) post-mortem reports prove that you are or (2) if a judge dictates that you are. The second step can take years. A lot of the parents of the missing students have used this issue to pressure the government to continue with the investigation; they believe that if the government legally considers them dead, they will close the investigation and nothing will be solved. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 15:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the article's worth posting (I've been checking it for refs and clarifications needed) it's full of comments such as, "At the highway, the gunmen, alleged to be members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), attempted to flee from law enforcement, ensuing a vehicle persecution." This is apparently the bottom end of machine translation. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Instead of ranting your personal views here as if it was your own blog, do you have any idea how politics and legislatures work? Laws don't get passed by fiat as if your own fiefdom.120.62.25.15 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the evidence I provided was purely contextual. If Americans don't like the fact that 80 people in the US are killed every day by guns alone, perhaps they should do something about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Far from ranting, I was explaining that I was putting the figures into context. If Americans don't like that, they should do something about it.  Last time I checked it was a democracy, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Nor is it a FORUM. Some of your commentary has been pushing the envelope, particularly with regards FORUM. Please stop. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to America, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Having learnt from the redcoats, never shall we give that up. Meanwhile, I'm off to see our fellow colonists New Zealand thrash the crap out of England at Lord's...120.62.25.15 (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Americans have the constitutional right to defend themselves, a right which Europeans lack. Europe is populated with millions upon millions of Neville Chamberlains. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not going quite to plan though, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Can we please stay focused on the merits or lack thereof of the proposed ITN blurb and skip the political editorializing. This is not the place for that. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, my statistics were purely to contextualise this event. It's the Americans who have become sniffy and shouty and ranty.  Please check.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready: I'm marking this as ready. The article has been expanded considerably. The first oppose was addressed, and the second one has hardly anything to do with the proposed ITN blurb. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - My previous concerns regarding the article condition have been addressed, and my thanks to those working on it: I agree with the observation that the article is now acceptable for a front page posting, having been upgraded to a solid "start" class. I also agree with those expressing concerns about the editorializing here, which is arguably disruptive and patently uncollegial.  Jus  da  fax   19:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - still notable enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Chinese floods

 * We need an article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There you go with a stub. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely not "just another flooding" with that many deaths. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The article is a stub and in need of major expansion. Also I am not sure that 55 people is all that abnormal for major floods in China. In fact it sounds rather low. I will keep an eye on this in case the article improves dramtically and or more facts become available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Ad Orientem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, we need a much more better article to establish this as significant news. It should be reminded that ITN is not a news ticker but to highlight good-quality articles that happen to be in the news, so the lack of a significant article is troublesome. --M ASEM (t) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's been a lot of death-related stories in the ITN already and floods keep happening all the time in China and India. So not an uncommon story. 117.192.181.88 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has been changed to a redirect; without its own article it seems unlikely this will be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2015 final

 * Strong support A majour pan-European event keenly followed and watched by tens of millions of Europeans and has international following as far as Australia. What could be added is that this is the 60th version of the contest. werldwayd (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on conclusion and update - article is prep well enough on that. Only tiny issue on article is that the album soundtrack cover violates NFC (it duplicates the logo of the event and thus unnecessary). --M ASEM (t) 13:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Add a image of the winner as well. Before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles are updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support Major pan-European event, destined to get lots of attention in the media etc. Had a viewership of 195 million last contest, which is 80 million than the Superbowl, and that was deemed worthy. Airlinesguy (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Estimated audience was 200 million:  Also notable for being broadcast live for the first time in China. Martinevans123 (talk) ... and we even had the British voting being announced in French!


 * Support - for the record. as nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Bondaruk85 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The 60th anniversary of the competition and a very close contest, with much less of the reciprocal "political" voting that has marred recent events. Innovative staging of the winning song undoubtedly helped it. Also notable for the inclusion of a song from Australia which came fifth. The article looks excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Biggest music contest in the world.--94.234.170.215 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The 60th anniversary alone is reason enough for inclusion. I'm surprised it isn't up already. Peter Isotalo 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Why isn't this up? There doesn't seem to be anything major wrong with our page. SeraV (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The biggest music competition in the world with nearly 200 million views on television and online. Lucky102 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An image update might be advisable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the proposed image, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: Is it possible to change the Sweden blurb link to Sweden so it links to Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest. Would be more appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Mexican cartel shooting

 * Comment isn't this the same as that already nominated? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, TRM, you appear to be right. I will redirect this page to the other article. Feel free to close this nomination. Everymorning   talk  13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Marques Haynes

 * Weak support: I don't know that being a great dribbler puts you at the top of a field, per se, but he was a notable figure in exhibition basketball and the article is well-referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with more refs: Being in the Hall of Fame is a key sign of being top of his field, but that isn't even cited. Also OR in "Legacy". &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support the notability is mild despite HoF (several hundred people in that hall) and the article is extremely weak for someone who is considered to be top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose . I might come down on the support side if the claims about influencing other people were cited, as well as being known for a catch phrase. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN had not posted to RD far more important basketball players. This isn't like ice hockey where we add every dead Hall of Famer. – H T  D  11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support - still notable. RD seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD A Hall of Famer and iconic figure in the sport. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The major issues with the article should now be resolved. I've removed some unreferenced claims, expanded the sections on his early life, playing career, and retirement, and added several references to reliable sources. If someone wants to mark this as ready to post, I'm all for it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A bit of an unconventional individual, but meets DC#2. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this article has been increased 50% in size and all the CN's addressed since I checked it at noon. It should go up asap. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hillary Clinton emails released

 * Strong oppose - Until there's actually charges made over this, this is just US politics for right now. --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  Strong oppose This is certainly not "the lead story on BBC news", and not the lead story on their worldwide site either, it's a single line well below the fold and below such excitements as the future career prospects of Ed Balls. This is something literally nobody outside the US is even aware of let alone cares about, and I very much doubt if most people in the US care either. Mogism (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This page warns people not to complain about an event relating to only one country, so the above opposes are therefore suspect. Everymorning   talk  19:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My oppose is not because this is only happening in the US, as this does relate to world events, but it is basically being pushed as a news story because it is a huge politic mess on the year prior to US election year, so right now this is just political party posturing. This is also not expected to reveal any major deep secrets like Snowden's leaks were. --M ASEM (t) 19:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The BBC home page, like a lot of modern websites, changes what article in on its main paged depending on your location. This might be on the top for someone looking at bbc.co.uk/news in the United States, but is is a 3rd-level headline, below the fold, on the UK version. Therefore using the local version of the site to claim international coverage is invalid. 129.234.0.22 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm really not seeing anything here as a news story in the least. It reads and feels more like supermarket tabloid fodder more than a breakthrough or something else of equal weight. The Forex scandal, the ongoing unrest in the Middle East, even association football results seem more newsworthy than this. Challenger l (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Open-ended non-event, with no conclusions drawn. Agree with Challenger 1. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quite apart from being a parochial political story, the emails don't even appear to be that interesting. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Post-closing oppose for good measure. We don't need to be a running ticker of local political gamesmanship.--WaltCip (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true America-basher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Saudi Arabia bombings
Is it just a figment of you imagination or do you have ANY proof beyond your indoctrination from whatshisname at RFE/RFRL that RT fabricates news like NYT and BBC did to go to Gulf War 3.0? Wake up, puppet!120.62.25.1 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support  — per news of massive loss of life. --Saqib (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if updated – huge devastation and another chapter in the Sunni-Shia relations which have been strained ever further by the Saudi intervention against the Houthis and disputes in the Gulf. The article however is one sentence, clearly not postable. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we have a better source on this than the execrable RT? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's definitely more sources, I've added the NYtimes which I note has lower death numbers than RT, and I would consider more reliable for that. Alt blurb to refelct. --M ASEM (t) 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - first major ISIS attack in the country. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ISIL attack could be intended to provoke sectarian conflict. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Return ISIL to ongoing: The rate of incidents involving this unpleasant band has risen sharply over the past couple of weeks. It's time to place ISIL in ongoing once more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - as per Jenda. --Ant a n O 13:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Why is this still open? 30 hours gone after nomination and will be stale in another 10 hours. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per Kudzul. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Irish marriage referendum

 * Oppose Over the past several years a lot of countries have done this and while they have been nominated, it's not really news. If a country in the Middle East votes to legalize, that is definitely post-worthy.  Spencer T♦ C 07:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The fact that this is (almost certain to be) the first time that same-sex marriage has been legalized at a national level by direct democracy is interesting, but individual US states have passed marriage referenda before (Washington Referendum 74, Maryland Question 6, Maine Question 1, 2012). Otherwise, as Spencer says, this just another Western European nation (and really, Ireland's behind the curve here - the only places west of the Rhine outside the island of Ireland without same-sex marriage are microstates like Andorra and dependencies like Gibraltar and the Faroe Islands). Smurrayinchester 09:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support only if it passes, not because it legalizes gay marriage, but because it is the first national referendum to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not notable. Not a first for the west nor for a Catholic country in the west (spain and Portugal) or outside the west (Argentina and, I believe, Uruguay). Chile legalizing divorce in the 21st century was notable, possibly the last country to do so. Now when Nicaragua legalizes even a section of abortion that would be notable (mother's life at risk for one).120.62.25.1 (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if passed: Use of direct democracy to change constitutional law. Ireland may not be Uganda, but it is still conservative compared to the rest of northern Europe. If rejected, this merely continues a status quo &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Important note: The linked page is a framework for both referendums on the same day, the other being a slightly less spicy reduction of the age to be President. The target article should be Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015. Would it over-egg to mention that this is constitutional law? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, working on the assumption that the polls are right, and the Irish will do the right thing. Strong oppose if rejected. This is a massive thing for Ireland, homosexuality was only decriminalised there 22 years ago. However, if it passes they will be the 20th country to legalise gay marriage, so it's hardly the news it used to be. Whatever happens, the misspellings in the blurb need to be corrected. Fgf10 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if passes; as noted by others, this would be the first time that direct democratic action has led to change in same-sex marriage laws for a country. (All others appear to have been via representatives, and not direct democratic action). --M ASEM (t) 14:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a note that I think the bolded article for the blurb should be Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015. This is what will have the full details of the proposal, referendum, and results. I've put this different wikilinking & bolding as an alt blurb. Mamyles (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if it passes, per tAD and 331. Such a result would have been unthinkable in the religiously conservative Ireland of even 20 years ago. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would have been unthinkable in almost ANY country 20 years ago. And it would have been ITN worthy at the time. But this is not 1995. In 2015 Western Countries are practically tripping over each other in a collective rush to legalize SSM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support if it passes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A referendum in a small country that is part of Europe where secularism has been growing by leaps and bounds. I think the only way I might support this would be if it actually failed as that would be a major surprise outcome. Not sure even then. This just looks like the latest domino to fall and fairly unimportant outside of Ireland. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if it passes. .Might help reduce all that illegal cross-border gay cake-running. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is a gay cake? Sca (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead people will focus on the real issue of our times, gay pizzas from Indiana -- Aronzak (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support if passes. I usually oppose same-sex marriage posts because it has become common to legislate for it in the West. However, this will be the first time that same-sex marriage will have been introduced through a referendum of all the citizens. That that will happen in a (previously?) very conservative and religious country adds to the notability as a significant milestone in issues around same-sex marriage. --Tóraí (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support First time that Same-sex marriage has been put to a constitutional referendum, and it will be influential in the rest of Europe, especially if it passes. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Support if passed. As mentioned above, blurbs need correction, it should be 'legalise'. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. We should wait for the results, but the No side has conceded defeat.  331dot (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Although results aren't final, Reuters calls it a "landslide," and AP, quoting both sides, says "Ireland has voted resoundingly to legalize gay marriage." Significant, not only as referendum first, but also due to the Irish Republic being (nominally) 84 percent R.C. (cf. Poland 87 percent, Italy 81 percent). Sca (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – always nice when a country votes for something that shouldnt even be an issue. Its 2015 not 1815.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I agree, liking the result is not a reason to support posting. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - homosexuality was decriminalised in Ireland in 1993. That's in part why this is emblematic of such a remarkable turnaround for the country in only just over two decades. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as its not noteworthy when a western country does it. It's just a routine for them to go for it (as last week saw a Premier wed his gay partner). But if it happens in East, it definitely IS a news. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is noteworthy when it is the first done by referendum, as this is. I agree that the mere fact it is legalized does not merit posting, but the method by which it was legalized should. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, the country where it was legalized. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 14:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A court legalizing it nationwide(which might be done in the US soon) or a legislature doing so is very different than the population of a nation voting to do so themselves. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - 22 years after homosexuality was finally decriminalised, it looks like the first national referendum taken on this subject has made Ireland the 20th country to recognize same-sex marriage at a national level. Sounds pretty noteworthy to me. Challenger l (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support . First country to do so by National referendum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once final result has been added to the article (expected in about an hour or two from now): It is notable, mainly because it is the first time any country has done this by direct popular vote, but perhaps also because the people voting still seem exceptionally conservative (their Constitution still bans abortion, as a result of a 1983 referendum), and perhaps also because it's deemed notable enough to be made front page news in many parts of the world in such traditional "reliable sources" as the New York Times, Le Monde, Al Jazzeera, etc (for details, see RTE's item on Reaction around the world) - a small West European country's parliament voting for the same thing would be lucky to get a mention on the inside pages. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when passed which is likely as per other posts. Donnie Park (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: that a country has passed same-sex marriage by referendum is so far unique, and thus particularly noteworthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb III, which explains the historic significance of the vote better than the other options. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: should the size of the turnout or the result be included in the blurb? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've mentioned that in past elections and referenda that have been posted to ITN. Official results haven't come out yet, anyway, although it's clear from the returns so far that the amendment was approved by a wide majority. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted using altblurb III; clear consensus to post. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Now appears as Ireland becomes the first country in the world .... IMO it ought to read,The Republic of Ireland becomes the first country in the world.... I realize Ireland links to Republic of Ireland, but it shouldn't be necessary for Main Page readers to click on Ireland to learn which Ireland we mean. Sca (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (Besides, we wouldn't want to rouse the ire of Northern Ireland residents.) Sca (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not possible up there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is going to be confused by the blurb because there's only one country that is ever referred to as Ireland. Why add two unnecessary words to a blurb? Formerip (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that the word Ireland can refer to the whole island.  Support  amending blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Inquiry. I thought the Ulstrians called themselves Ulstrians, or Northern Irelanders.  I have never heard the Irish call themselves the South Irish.  Granted, I don't live there, but this seems like an overcomplication for the sake of justifying British political occupation. Given the "southrons" aren't about to stone queer couples to death, is there a point in this Ulster has nothing to do with it objection? μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Forex scandal

 * Support A major international banking scandal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Added an altblurb just in case, as the name of this scandal is not necessarily well-known. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support These are some big-name banks, looking at the article. Business is also an infrequently posted topic on ITN. --WaltCip (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Big banks, big bucks. (Is the word settlement necessary?) Sca (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I included that because this should be the practical end of the situation, it is not just fines and the case going forward. But if it is seemingly clear, that can be removed. --M ASEM (t) 15:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt you mean unclear. Rationale understood, but I just don't think settlement fines is a phrase in general usage. ("Settlement" isn't normally an adjective.) Seems to me if we say "agree to pay fines" the implication that it's a settlement is pretty clear. But no biggie. Sca (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support when updated - major news in an area (business) that tends to be underrepresented. The alt blurb is preferable, I think. I don't think "pay settlement fines" is good English.  Either "agree to fines" or "announce a settlement" is better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability: Big scandal, big money, big news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Added Altblurb2 based on comments above. --M ASEM (t) 16:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - It's rare when banks get caught and own up to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a paragraph to summarize the current news on that article. --M ASEM (t) 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb2 - Big money, big banks, big news. This blurb is the most preferable blurb to me Palmtree5551 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as this is a very important news about the outcome of a major financial scandal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and marked ready. ITN worthy scandal and well cited fit-for-main page article. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose main blurb, because the capitalisation unjustly accuses an uninvolved Swedish bank. Narayanese (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Merge/blurb: Palmyra

 * Comment According to BBC, they seized the northern part but not reached the ruins yet which are in the south-west. I'm inclined to wait for a while. Brandmeistertalk  14:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Reported to be seized now. God save Palmyra from destruction. Brandmeistertalk  08:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait This appears to be an in progress event. Beyond which this has the potential to develop into a really major story given ISIL's aversion to anything hinting at civilization. There are some major ruins there that these savages misunderstood missionaries have vowed to raze. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Multiple RS sources are reporting the city has in fact fallen. And there are huge fears for some of the world's most magnificent ruins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait but would support if does end up the case. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Reuters is reporting that Palmyra has been seized by ISIS.  Everymorning   talk  19:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And now the lead story on the New York Times is that Palmyra has been conquered. Support updating blurb, this is a significant development in this situation. Everymorning   talk  22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given multiple sources reporting that the town is conquered. Suggestion that we have a possibly better target link than just Palmyra like one to ISIL or this specific expansion? ---M ASEM  (t) 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending update. The article on the city is high quality, in fact is a GA, but so far there are just a couple scattered sentences regarding the fall of the city to ISIS. Jus  da  fax   01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Palmyra is in Syria, it's absurd to claim some body whose name would include Israel and Lebanon has accomplished this, when they have taken the northern outskirts. It's like saying Elizabeth, Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France and the South Seas, has birthed a great grand-daughter.  Not that there's anything wrong with that. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not so much that Palmyra is in Syria, but that it is home to a large number of ancient and important ruins that have in the past been key to understanding human developing in the Cradle of Life. And like before, ISIL seems set to wipe out those ruins without care as part of their actions. If it was yet another city in Syria, sure, it would go under ongoing, but its the ruins that many are worried about. --M ASEM (t) 03:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem, and if you haven't read the article by all means please give it a look. I was unfamiliar with the rich history of this town. Also, the major natural gas fields in the area are a consideration in the news stories I have been reading. Jus  da  fax   04:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merging of blurbs this is a big news story. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. BBC is now reporting that ISIS have entered the World Heritage Site itself.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ISIS are destroyers. It's their nature. This is par for the course, nothing unusual for them. If the world had really cared about that "world heritage site" which ISIS will now wield their implements of destruction upon, they would have done something to stop ISIS. They haven't. If the world doesn't care, why should Wikipedia care? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is indeed in the news, internationally, means that the world does care. What the world might not support is overt military action, but that's another matter and nothing to do with us.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Being in the news is not a ticket to an entry here. If it were, Letterman's final show would have been included. And if the world doesn't care enough to do something about it, it's the same as not caring at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any clue as to the international significance of the Palmyra news, as against that of a US media person, about whom the rest of the world says, "Who?". Apparently not.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Letterman was covered internationally. Oh, I forgot - wikipedians are smarter than the BBC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We are, though not always. Brandmeistertalk  15:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, Letterman is more important than the invasion and probable destruction of thousands of years of history. God Bless America!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted as combined blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment my opposed above was based on the blurb wording and that reports were that they Syrian insurgents hadn't taken the archeologically significant part of the city yet. At this points it's moot and I have no complaints. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - Can we link the battle article? Tadmur offensive (2015).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Question- Why is this not ongoing? There are at least ten new stories every day!  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: 1) If events are important enough for a blurb, that always overrides an "ongoing" listing. 2) Prior to this week, there was no regularly updated article to point an ongoing listing to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] David Letterman's final show

 * Weak Oppose "Retirement" in this day and age of entertainment is not a sure thing. I'm aware of what Letterman has said that this is it, it, but that can always change. And because his stint as a late night talk show run has not be on the same show, there's nothing there either.  But if there's consensus that because he's said multiple times that he's retiring, that might be okay to post. However, I also point out that this is bordering on plain old celebrity/entertainment news, which is something we tend to avoid at ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 05:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose much for the same reasons as the last season of American Idol. Believe it or not, in other English speaking countries, not many even know who he is. (UK). When he dies, 100% support, but not another show ending, to be replaced by another host. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support everybody in the US knows the show, a bunch of people from outside know it. The show has established many records and somehow it is still popular and pertinent. He does not appear at all to be the know of person to undo the retirement (he is actually old, his place is taken by somebody else, and considering he has made fun of Leno/Conan drama he isn't going to try to undo it). And his retirement is far more notable than a potential death. Nergaal (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nergaal, who said he's known in US and I could hardly find any more notability of him outside America. Its like he's retiring, an expected thing from his faithful old service. Its like that American Idol nom only. Nothing significant. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 06:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose parochial story of little historic or encyclopedic notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I think Letterman would merit posting to RD (in the far future) given his career and as such I think the end of his career is notable, if getting notable coverage which this is(even outside the US). I also don't think this is garden variety celebrity news(like a marriage, divorce, or birth).  The fact that retirements can change is not relevant; most items that get posted can potentially change in the future. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: We posted Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement. I'm sure that got moderate coverage in the US, just as this gets moderate coverage outside the US. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Letterman is probably better known outside the US than Americans think - for people round the world searching for celebrities on YouTube, Letterman interviews and live music performances often surface high in the results.  Bands will routinely Tweet and Facebook "watch us on Letterman tonight".  Certainly not a completely parochial story. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose US-centric entertainment news. Letterman is known outside the US, but is show isn't widely watched. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support We have a really good target article here, and this is a high-interest story for a lot of our readership. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It is in the news, even here in Germany:, . Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - BBC.com international has a link from the front page to a story on Letterman. He was on late-night TV longer than Carson. And his article is excellent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every show will come to its end at some point and there is no reason to post it unless it has the potential of generating extraordinary impact. Please don't forget that in 2010 we didn't post the conclusion of Larry King Live, which was far more popular and watched TV show.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an example of the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't take it as a precedent to oppose this but just mention it to explain my reasoning why we shouldn't regress to posting stories with very limited significance in times when the nominations we discuss greatly outnumber those we dealt with five years ago. You cannot simply remove the history of ITN and what we discussed in the past by ruleslawyering as a defending mechanism to throw away the opinions of others. If you wish a simple oppose, then I'd say that this is a minor news with zero impact compared to what is happening in the world these days.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This surprisingly is the type of news that also makes it also to more or less serious news shows outside the US. That makes it a relevant news item. L.tak (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Letterman has been around much longer and has more standing by far than American Idol which was rightly rejected. That said, I am uncomfortable with a lot of these entertainment related stories and don't want ITN turning into the Wikipedia version of Variety (magazine). But yeah this story has been getting a lot of attention from the mainstream press, including some overseas coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that it's an important series, but there is nothing particularly special about a single episode. I do not think a retirement party is especially notable or of import. Frankly, retirement is a typical, routine event. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The episode itself doesn't matter enough for ITN. The infinite nothingness that follows in the series is the neat thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose we shouldn't post this, just like we shouldn't have posted Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Though much ballyhooed, event itself lacks EV. Sca (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, although it won't pass because people tend to get offended when something is America-related. Idol is different; Letterman does have a legacy. There are plenty of British-related blurbs I have no interest or knowledge in, but I don't object to them because people do need equal coverage for big events. Anyone who says a legacy television show ending is not newsworthy is simply blind to culture. Thatdee69 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should be more careful in choosing the words to express your disappointment. Complaining by using phrases like 'blind to culture' largely cross the red line of civility. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Letterman is a late-night icon and the longest-serving host. I'm not generally a fan of putting much pop culture on ITN, but I'm inclined to back this nom because he really was a transformative figure in the medium. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose What are we going to have as the update, a run-down of the guests? Letterman's not dead, and the end of the show's been planned years in advance. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It would be great if ITN had the kind of topic diversity so that it could just include this, but it doesn't, and I think making an exception for this particular story would be the kind of systematic bias we should avoid. Formerip (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I really don't see the significance. Yes, it was a long running programme/host, but in the end it's only a TV programme. Fgf10 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only is a strange word to use here, I think. In that respect, you could say that everything that is not politics, war and so forth is only this or that. You could say it about every bit of culture we post here: sports, paintings, etc. The things is, culture (and that includes TV, since it's still the widest ranging form of culture) is not just an ornament of our society, it constitutes one of its very backbones. We consume it every day, it changes the way we look at things, the way we decide. So, yes, it is only a TV programme, but how does that make it any less important than the Islamic State or Barack Obama? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would guess it has something to do with longevity. Sure, Letterman will be noted as a celebrated television presenter for years to come but he's not dead, he's simply moved on.  Islamic State and Barack Obama will be hard-coded into history indelibly.  There's no comparison at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never had a good time listening to either of those. People remember the good times. Happy people, anyway. Miserable people are doomed to remember misery. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just in case this does get posted, the blurb should say "...in US television history". Gay Byrne for one beats him to the international record. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A subtle yet important point, a lot of people are proclaiming Letterman to be this record-holder, but it's simply not true. Good old Gaybo!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as noted above he is not the world record holder (whereas when we noted The Guiding Light ' s finale, it was the longest-running electronic scripted show at that time by far). Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had been wondering if he really was the longest-serving late-night chat show host in TV history. Now that we have established that he isn't, I don't see a reason to post. It's a good example of systemic bias in media sources - there are all these news articles saying that he's the longest-serving, but it turns out that's just a case of Americans forgetting the rest of the world exists. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I Guess So Canadians are raised on American TV, too. While the rational part of me knows it was just a show, in the grand scheme of things, the irrational part is screaming "Just a show?!? It's David Letterman! He's leaving! Come on, man." It wins this round. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of that rousing Canadian support, I'll be happy to change my vote if we use the blurb "27 years after a guest tried to kick him in the forehead, a gap-toothed Hoosier flees the small screen". μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A date which will live in infamy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's not - Not significant enough. Are there any other internationally significant talk show hosts enough to be mentioned ITN in the future? --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stone Cold Steve Austin (of Lopez Tonight fame) recently got a network deal for his show. It's not a "real" network, just the WWE Network, but still reaches about 175 countries. In that sense, it makes the "Big 3" look small. He shouldn't be cancelled for a while, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's also the fact that my ultimate crush flashed Letterman. OR has to count for something here. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Refugio Oil Spill

 * Oppose It looks like this isn't a particularly large spill: the affected area is very local, just a handful of square miles. Around 100k gallons is an environmental disaster, but multiple orders of magnitude less than previously posted spills. As a benchmark, even the New York Times (as a USA source) does not currently mention this on their homepage. Mamyles (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The coast has been affected by the spill. How would the impact depend on some square miles and size? We don't know what type of oil it was, but we can't use this as preventing the story from being posted. George Ho (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Small oil spills are actually pretty common. Databases that keep track of spills don't even put emphasis on oil spills less than 700 tonnes. This is 330 tonnes. Mamyles (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Highlighted in the news because it's affecting a well-known beach area. It is by no means a massive spill compared to say Exxon Valdez, and cleanup will be much easier. --M ASEM (t) 20:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Do the math.  a 5x5x4 meter cube of oil would be 26,400 gallons.  Versus the Pacific (which is Latin for hu-effing-mongous) Ocean. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support If 100k gallons is an environmental disaster, as Mamyles says, than new estimates of how much spilled meet that threshold. The blurb is out of date, as they say now that 100k spilled. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For those not familiar with the term Mamyles used, "multiple orders of magnitude" means hundreds or thousands of times smaller. Four times bigger than estimated does not equal hundreds or thousands of times bigger. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just had the idea to look up List of oil spills to put this into perspective, and does it ever. Change to weak oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary

 * Oppose Arrests aren't the same as convictions. If they are found/plead guilty of this, that might be reason to post, but not before. --M ASEM (t) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I edit-conflicted with Masem saying pretty much the same as him. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] László Krasznahorkai wins Man Booker International Prize

 * Support although László Krasznahorkai should be updated with prose regarding his receipt of such a prestigious literary award. I don't even think the article states what he won for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added some prose to the author's article about this prize. Also, my understanding is that this prize isn't awarded for a single work but rather for a body of work, so you don't really win it for anything.  Everymorning   talk  17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support both articles are adequate, ITNR so not much more to think about. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements Krasznahorkai's article is woefully undersourced for a BLP, but otherwise this is appropriate to include at ITN. --M ASEM (t) 06:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * article is now in better shape and good enough for posting per Kudzu1's updated below. --M ASEM (t) 02:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Marking ready unless there are any objections at this stage. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Krasznahorkai's article is a bit weak (underreferenced) and I would expect to see some prose about the award at the target article (probably Krasznahorkai's since there is no 2015 award page). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a little bit of work on the article, but it might need some additional polish, if you want to take a look. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Removing ready. The bolded article does not have a sufficient prose update. (Compare Man_Booker_International_Prize with previous years).  Spencer T♦ C 07:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now updated, if you want to review. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Happy Rockefeller

 * Support Strongly support Never heard of her, and don't believe "Second Lady" is an important title, but her last name is globally significant and her first name is joyous. Will take Kudzu's word that she had quite a scandal back in the day. Other people probably remember it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strengthened support after discovering her actual first names, Margaretta Large Fitler Murphy, are even better than happiness. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No leadership in field shown. Being part of a scandal may be something but really, I'm not seeing that as important. Further, just being married to a sitting vice-president (or even president) is necessary important, though counter that there have been First and Second ladies that have been very active in political and/or social causes (such as Ladybird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Hillary CLinton, and Michelle Obama). She may have had some philanthropy but far far less than any of these better examples, so again, not a leader in the field. --M ASEM (t) 01:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nothing top of field could be said. Plus, when you speak of scandals, Monica is the top of the field. No news of her outside US again. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 06:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Masem; her notability is largely due to being married to a VP.  Coverage seems limited, as well. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nelson Rockefeller was a lot more than "a VP". When Ford appointed him VP, I recall one commentator saying that merely being VP wasn't enough: "Anyone who owns something should be president of it." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Masem. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Whatever notability was ascribed to Happy Rockefeller in the U.S. is long past. Sca (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No evidence of any real importance independent of her husband. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Burundian unrest/coup d'état attempt

 * Support While a failed coup, now that the dust has settled, it's reasonable to consider posting. I would rather see the merge aspect dealt with first (I agree the coup should be merged into the main unrest article). --M ASEM (t) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: I nominated this for ITN just a few days ago. Perhaps the nominations should be merged as well...? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support over 112,000 refugees have fled the country fearing unrest, three cabinet ministers dismissed, the election postponed, Armed soldiers are on the streets and heavy gunfire reported - one soldier has been killed by police fire. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - Between the three nominations, there appears to be consensus to post at some point and no one has objected to this timing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Columbian landslide

 * Oppose No article and not on the front page of any of the new sources I read (not on BBC, not on NBC, etc etc) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Article stub created. As with news sources, are you sure you have seen here the 300+ reports. -The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 03:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. As to notability, we didn't post a similar landslide with a large death toll in a part of Afghanistan where landslides are common just a few weeks ago. I'd be interested in knowing more about how common these phenomena are in this part of Colombia before judging whether this seems like a notable occurrence. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is in way better shape now, the death toll is substantial, and I will support alt blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support subject to article expansion, in light of the death toll and widespread media coverage. Neljack (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability as was certainly on the front page of my BBC yesterday, albeit briefly, but oppose on quality as it's barely even a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it now does feature on my BBC News homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Not posting Afghanistan was a mistake (and a freak occurrence based on my years on ITN experience) and shouldn't be used to judge other stories.  Obviously the article quality will need improved to at least start class. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Death toll is up to 78 and likely to rise, making this the worst single-event disaster in Colombia in more than 15 years. Article is now in good shape.  If  could take another look and revise their comments accordingly, I would appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted a short, referenced article should now placate the opposition on the grounds of quality, and reset the benchmark for discussing further natural disasters. Stephen 04:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted blurb] RD/blurb: Aruna Shanbaug

 * Oppose The fact that the article is basically a direct to the case and not the person (as per WP:BLP1E) is a clear sign she's not important in her field. I'm not sure if we necessary want to highlight death of an unintentional victim of a crime as their sole claim to notability. --M ASEM (t) 14:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Without weighing in one way or the other on it's suitability, IF it were to be posted, it would have to be a blurb, because the death itself is what needs highlighting. In other words, this is a case where the death is notable, rather than the death of someone who is notable.  RD is for the latter.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a very simple blurb which may be altered. There is no doubt of notability as over 400 articles reports it.-The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * support - I think this is important enough for ITN. The blurb could need some changes though.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - her case is important in a long-running debate and a supreme court case in India about euthanasia. Maybe the blurb should be edited to reflect that. -Zanhe (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I would be willing to support this if this blurb was not so much about how she got in a coma, but what impact that had in Indian law re: euthanasia. Keep in mind the article is about her case, not about her, which is what we should focus on. --M ASEM (t) 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that's why I supported blurb and not RD. She was not an important person in her field, but her case has had great impact on Indian law and society, and that's what we should focus on. -Zanhe (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support the article is alright, and the notability of the story is beyond doubt, it passed by the homepage of the international BBC website. Masem's claim that she's not " a clear sign she's not important in her field" is a little odd, her field being kept alive in a persistant vegetative state for 42 years after being raped.  Her field has since become a subject of debate surrounding euthanasia in India and, as I've already said, has been noted widely and prominently.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * She didn't anything purposely to merit being in this "field", nor would I want to think anyone would want to be known as a leader in that field. But as the central point of the issue of euthanasia, her passing is a reminding that her case established how euthanasia is handled in country containing 1/7th of the world's population. --M ASEM  (t) 20:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody suggested she became notable in this way purposely. To even suggest or consider to be the case is absurd and sickening.  Your original point was that she was not important in her field.  Perhaps a blurb is more appropriate in that case, given the chronic nature of her long-term palliative care.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I think I said I would probably support a blurb that puts the emphasis that her coma situation was the central aspect in how euthanasia is now treated in India; just having her as RD without context would not be appropriate (particularly when, per WP:BLP1E we would not have an article on her separately). The blurb takes the emphasis of her being "important" and instead refocuses on her case being what was important. --M ASEM (t) 21:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The target article is actually the Aruna Shanbaug case. Not opposed to blurb, since the cause of death would normally be listed as the assault (and subsequent deterioration) in the US. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb As Jayron32 describes at the top of the page, this type of case is not what RD is for. It is her death itself which is (part of) the notable event, and this is certainly notable enough. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb agree with others here EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD and weak oppose blurb per Masem. Independent notability doesn't exist for RD; she is known solely for being the victim of a crime several decades ago. If a blurb is posted, a better blurb is needed -- one that makes it clear to the reader why we're posting her to ITN, probably referring to any cause celebre status she held in her country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - Several comments suggested a different blurb, but nothing specific was offered. I thus made one up:
 * Aruna Shanbaug, a rape victim whose case sparked debate on euthanasia in India, dies after 42 years in a persistent vegetative state.
 * Please suggest improvements if you can. --ThaddeusB (talk)


 * Oppose/pull and I am kinda surprised such a non-obvious ITN item got posted so fast. Her death was not unexpected, nor notable, and rape-related incidents are rather overrepresented in ITN (similarly to shootings in the US). I suggest pull unless there is a more clear consensus to support this rather limited impact and notability incident. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "So fast"? The nomination was open for ~24 hours before posting and the consensus was obvious. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary to Nergaal's assertion, news outlets treated this as a big deal. It is not for us to wish they hadn't. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * News outlets in India? News outlets in the US go all out every time there is a shooting spree, but it is still basically the same old story. India and rape, US and shootings. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the blurb. If it were my choice, the item wouldn't have been posted, but I'm fine with the blurb that ThaddeusB put up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too, User:Nergaal is starting to demonstrate signs of lack of WP:COMPETENCE with his posts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should change your name to TROM since you do sound like one. Can't see a day pass by without a cranky post from you. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. He whinges about everything he doesn't personally like and ritually criticizes others while expecting his nominations to be a god send. Clear COMPETENCE deficiencies there in his apparent right to abuse anyone and everyone he sees fit.120.62.24.125 (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When insulting someone it's preferable to use real words otherwise nobody will have a clue what you are on about. Stephen 04:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * O is for really Old. Nergaal (talk)


 * @ThaddeusB better close this before getting into a name calling fest, though it already is. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 06:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dean Potter

 * Support as ITN has a newfound love of such activities as noted by the nominator. Article is decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; seems important to the climbing world. As noted the article seems OK too. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: To contrast, the previous nom was about being the first to do what was considered a near-impossible free climb. Here, as I'm checking, Taft Point is far less difficult to get to, and it has been been base jumped from before (possibly even by Potter himself) - there was no "first" being attempted here; further, the activity is considered illegal there, and as the BBC notes, Potter's defied authority to do stuff at Yosemite before. That said, he is a leader in the field of rock climbing it appears, so RD seems fine. --M ASEM (t) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was not a leader in rock climbing. Free solo he did nothing more difficult than Separate Reality - that was first climbed free solo 20 years earlier. In speed climbing, on The Nose (El Capitan) others have already beaten his time by a significant margin (a fact the fanpage article fails to mention). The first free climb by someone else of El Capitan was a notable achievement in climbing, having once owned the speed record on one of the routes is not a notable achievement. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He has been described as "Renowned extreme athlete" ; "one of America's best known extreme athletes" (BBC article); "was widely considered one of the most influential climbers" ; "pioneering climber" ; said that his death "sent shockwaves through the climbing world" ; "iconic extreme athlete" ; "notorious thrill seeker" . Seems to be a leader in climbing to me. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "sent shockwaves through the climbing world"? You failed to quote the source correctly. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that conveys the gist of what was said, and doesn't change my point. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It clearly changes your point. If you would claim he was famous for being a notorious thrill seeker completely ignorant of the law and safety, there might or might not be enough notability for RD in that field now that the inevitable has happened. Regarding climbing, please show non-US sources saying he was one of the worlds leading climbers. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you say it changed it, OK. Sources: "Potter, 43, was a climbing and wingsuit pioneer and the creator of “freebase"" (The Guardian); "He was famous for his audacious, solo, bare-hand climbs up some of the world's most terrifying cliffs and walls" (ITV); "An extreme athlete and BASE-jumper known for climbing some of the world's highest cliffs without ropes or aid" (Independent); the Irish Times has similar language. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The ABC in Australia states "Dean Potter, one of America's best known rock climbers" . 331dot (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only actual climbing achievement your sources list is Delicate Arch, and that is not a difficult climb. You omitted the most hilarious part of what your non-reliable sources wrote: Potter had been known for constantly pushing the boundaries of climbing and often scaled some of the world’s most daunting cliff faces alone and without ropes, climbing with his bare hands. For any scientific achievement a peer-reviewed article is highly requested for ITN posting, but for achievements in climbing you cite articles as sources that were written by people who did not even know that using your bare hands is the normal way of climbing? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are just going to dismiss every source there is, then I'm not sure why I bothered. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they were just writing for their readers. But, who knows, perhaps he managed without socks, too? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - On one hand, we're not the Darwin Awards. On the other hand, this is an unusual way to die and is notable in that regard.--WaltCip (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, Support article quality. Anyone with a viral film called When Dogs Fly deserves an appearance on the front page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose after reading the article. Guy who has been flirting with death for 20 years (and has practically no news coverage outside specialist sources whilst doing so) finally makes a mistake. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective. The fact his death is covered in detail by major news outlets makes you think he is only noted in "specialist sources"?  I think we can safely discount this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, not if you actually read my comment properly - my point was that he wasn't particularly notable in life (hence my point that 90% of the sources in his article pre-death were specialist ones), so we have to decide if his death is notable enough for RD. My opinion is that it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We are judging if he was important to his field (the RD criteria relevant here), not if he was notable to all of humanity. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I agree that his death is in the news media and that the article meets minimum standards, I look at the other RD listings and don't see that Dean Potter makes the cut. Will many remember this person a decade or two from now? We all have our own definition of where to draw the line for RD listings. This nomination, in my view, does not qualify. Jus  da  fax   20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He broke records, climbed "the first major section of El Capitan to be free soloed" : see our previous glorification of someone climbing El Capitan in stages over several days with several re-starts. What's the difference? Will many remember the names of those who made the first climb of the tricky side of El Capitan (in stages, over several days, with several fails) in a decade or so? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * {to Justdafax) How can we predict the future and know who will be remembered in ten years? There are likely many cases where the opposite is true; we think a person might be notable in ten years and they end up not being so.  In the climbing community it seems like he will indeed be remembered, based on how he is described. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment For a short time he was together with his partner the fastest on one specific route and only until someone else was significantly faster. Quoting El Capitan: There are more than 100 different routes on El Capitan and most of them have some kind of speed record attached to them. Ammon McNeely owns the most records on El Cap, 23 records in total, 13 of them being First One Day Ascents. And a short free solo of some part where you pick the easiest route is not as much of an achievement as free climbing a whole wall in 19 days. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * HiLo, how can you quote a rock formation? Have you been watching too much television?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment am unopposed, but think maybe an 'in sports" ticker would be better for things like this, Belmont, La Liga, etc. Less sports domination, less rancor, better actual news coverage. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have wanted to remove sports stories for some time. After all, this feature is "In The News." As for the other comments, I repeat, you folks have your standards, I have mine. Jus  da  fax   21:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My giddy aunt! These sports are even more exciting than Henley Regatta! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Justdafax, please respond to my comment above. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I decline further discussion. I have taken Medeis' idea to the talk page for a !vote. Jus  da  fax   01:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * General comment honestly, is it better to have stale or no RDs listed at ITN or list articles about clearly notable individuals who are in the news with half-decent articles? I love the fact some here are trying to get ITN shut down, but let's not bow to that stupid approach.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * General answer A rambling person claiming someone is clearly notable does not imply that the person is actually clearly notable. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The opposite is true as well; you insisting they aren't notable doesn't mean they aren't notable. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * HiLo, if this individual is not notable, I suggest you take the article to WP:AFD. Or don't you do that sort of thing?  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not really notable outside the small community of people into extreme outdoor sports. Many people, even in the U.S., heard about him for the first time today. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The RD criteria relevant here is whether he was important to his field, not to all of humanity. People having heard of him today means that people will want to learn about him, and might come to Wikipedia to do it, which is one of the purposes of ITN. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Judging from the article on him and the general tone I'm seeing - this was clearly one of the most notable climbers of the present day. A risk-taker, and someone that sought a challenge in what he did, and how he lived. More than that, and I start going into op/ed. Reported by major news sources, influential and notable in his field. Sourcing looks good. Challenger l (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: A noted extreme sportsman, and one who died in a very unusual way (wingsuit accident?). This is a no-brainer to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready. No question of notability here. We read of him here in India even. Plus, B B King is lying there for a week almost. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment agree this is ready to post. I would, but I have conflict of interest since I have already strongly advocated it should be posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] La Liga

 * Support pending article updates Oppose as not ITNR as originally listed. There is absolutely nothing in the lead about the fact this is an association football championship. Further, I feel there needs to be more prose as you only have 4-5 short para supporting lots of tables. --M ASEM (t) 04:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake..-The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 04:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support La Liga is as least as strong as the Premier League. Including one and excluding the other is unjustified. Soccer is, by some distance, the most popular sport in the world, so I don't think this would result in having too many items about it, as some have suggested. It is reasonable for the most popular sport to have more than others. Neljack (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * La Liga is nowehere near as strong as the Premier League in a footballing sense, yes it has Barca and Real but beyond that, just minnows really. Hence the sheer volume of goals scored by those top two clubs.  The Premier League is a very different beast indeed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence Sevilla FC reached the 2015 UEFA Europa League Final, rather than Everton, Tottenham or Liverpool &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, British clubs take the Europa League very seriously indeed! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The British clubs also had no team in the Quarterfinals of the Champions League. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the 7 English teams in the European competitions made it into the best 8 of their competition. Looking at the last 5 years (equally weighted), UEFA ranks English teams narrowly ahead of Germany and far behind Spain. (That is the list that decides the number of berths in the competitions for the countries.) LoveToLondon (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And Hull City rank above Lyon. So what?  UEFA rankings apply to those clubs who have participated in European competitions, my comment was on the domestic competition (which La Liga is, right?). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw: Germany will be ahead of England at the beginning of next season. But I still agree, the Premier League is by far the strongest in Europe. The Bundesliga might be more balanced than La Liga, but the Spanish top teams are still way ahead of Dortmund, Gladbach, Schalke etc... Unfortunately. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support We need a review of ITN/R when it comes to soccer. At the moment, only Premier League of national competitions is listed. La Liga and Bundesliga have global interest at least level to the Premier League, at least the winning teams do. And I read the other day that due to crap performances in European competitions, the Premier League is close to sinking below Serie A in the rankings. Also, in a couple of weeks we have the FA Cup, which is widely watched and as much a part of sports culture over the last century and a half as The Ashes, The Boat Race and the World Series. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate you speaking out for the Bundesliga, it is not "at least level to the Premier League"... Cardiff City earns twice as much from TV revenues than Bayern München! I am usually one to support this Wiki being broad and international, but in this case I would support an English Wiki only posting the only English speaking football league that matters. So Opposse from me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support notability we should post this on its own merits. It is league watched around the world, a league which regularly deposits two or three clubs into the semifinals of the two European contests, more so than most, if not all other European leagues.  Oppose on quality the season article is lame and has virtually no prose, along with a couple of maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a small bit of prose above the league table. The thing with league season articles is that they cover 380 matches, so naturally people find it easier to make tables of the sackings, hat-tricks etc rather than write something so dynamic. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just glanced at 2013–14 La Liga and thought it to be a markedly better article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still on more round of matches, we can't put anything about top scorers, top goalkeepers or any other relegation/European places until then. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plenty else to be fixed up though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another routine sporting ritual won by the usual suspect in the usual way. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Speaking in an admin capacity, with no horse in this race, regardless of whether or not people support this on significance makes no difference, the article is not postable in its current state. There's almost no prose in it describing the season.  It's a bunch of tables and a little bit of introductory text for a few of them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sets unfavorable precedent of posting domestic league results from non-English speaking countries. --Tocino 13:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may wish to refactor that statement.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If notable, we should post items from non-English speaking countries as it helps work on systemic bias issues.  Further, single-country objections are not valid, as stated under the "Please do not" section above. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a single-country objection. It's an objection to broadening the scope of sports results that are eligible to be posted on ITN. --Tocino 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't deal in precedent here; we deal with each nomination on its individual merits. If something gains consensus to post and is deemed adequate from a quality standpoint, it will be posted. "Non-English speaking countries" is such an objection as you are saying it does not relate to English-speaking countries.  We aim to be an encyclopedia for all information, not just that which is in English. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. The (non-quality based) opposes consist of "it's a sport" (philosophical opposition to all sports) and "they don't speak English there" (encouraging systematic bias contra policy) and thus hold almost zero weight.   La Liga is a major league with major interest and impact both within Spain and outside of Spain.  The article will need some work, however, to be posted, as noted above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we post the Bundesliga as well? What about Serie A? Ligue 1? Tocino 15:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would cut it off at Bundesliga, as Premier+Liga+Bundesliga are a step above the rest of the world's football leagues, but that is not really relevant to this discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that 4 weeks after the championship was decided in Germany... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe ITN needs a supplement called "Already gone from the news." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of English-speaking interest in the winners of the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A. I know the Americans hate it, but association football is so much more important to the global English-speaking community that it deserves its place at ITN in most leagues.  I was fascinated to learn that to win the Superbowl, you have to participate in a total of 20 games.  Twenty games, each one lasting an hour.  With a team of dozens of offensive, defensive and specialist players. All padded up.  So twenty hours of game play will get you to be the universal champion of American football.
 * I think to be the English champion of association football, you might have to play 38 games each lasting 90 minutes with a team of 16 or so. Three subs maximum per game.  The fact of the matter is that the round-ball game has far more universal interest, even in the English-speaking world.  This isn't American Wikipedia, it's the English-language Wikipedia, and most English-speaking football supporters would agree that La Liga, at the very least, is a worthy entry in our rapidly moving ITN section of the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. Could we maybe agree to keep it out this year since we did not post the Bundesliga either, also considering the article might not be in shape at a time that this is still "in the news", but that we discuss which leagues to add to ITN/R for future reference? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Major sports championships should be noted, even if it is just soccer. ITN need not just be a murder-and-mayhem summary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait and merge Bundesliga ends on the 23rd, Premiership ends on the 24th. We should do what was done last year and merge multiple football blurbs together. Spain, England and Germany are the top three, so I'd restrict it to those, but in theory Ligue 1 or Serie A could go in as well, at risk of overloading the blurb. Smurrayinchester 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But Bayern and Chelsea are already confirmed as champions, I don't see the point in waiting here. The Rambling Man (talk)
 * Support. Strongest soccer league with the best teams and best players. Maybe Spain is only so far ahead when the best teams in each league are compared but those teams determine the difficulty of winning the league. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment happy to post this once the maintenance tag above the hat-tricks sections is dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a match report as reference to each hat-trick and removed the tag. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled The quality problems noted above by several editors were not adressed. Regardless of significance, the article text itself is NOT main-page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, are you concerned about regarding article quality? It looks like the maintenance tag TRM was waiting on had been resolved. Mamyles (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What problems? The article looks to be in acceptable shape to me and roughly the same quality as the posted (and not pulled Premier League article).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops! I'm content.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Query: SO, what is the World Series / Super Bowl of this sport? Seems like there's a gazillion of them in ITN for this, cricket, rugby, etc. Keep things simple and straightforward for those of use that have never heard of them so we know what the top-rung is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.24.165 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Domestic European sports leagues usually don't have playoffs. Everybody plays everybody at home and away, and the result is determined by adding points for all league games in the season. La Liga is the top soccer league in Spain and the winner is simply called the Spanish champion. There is also a Spanish cup tournament Copa del Rey which has a final, but the cup is less prestigious than the league in all countries and sports I know about. In addition to domestic leagues and cups, many sports also have a European championship. For soccer the main club event is the UEFA Champions League which both has a group stage and a knockout phase. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Macedonian protests

 * Support Definitely making headlines, and that is what ITN is about. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait: Let's see if this develops further. Not seeing a case for notability right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs to be updated and reworked. It has to be mentioned that two separate protests occurred in two days in different places: the first one organised by the opposition to demand resignation from the Prime Minister and the second one organised by the government to refuse the resignation. In its current shape, the information in the article may mislead the reader that it documents a single event in which the governmental supporters clashed with those who support the opposition. I also see that some sentences are written in future tense to indicate the event happening on 18 May, which was yesterday.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait till a better view is established. We have scores of such cases in ITN yearly which rarely threat a government. Better to wait till 20th. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we have protests involving thousands of people all the time all over the world. I'd like to understand what makes this any more notable than any of the other protests which involve thousands of people.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major international news coverage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Waco biker gang shooting

 * Support as nom. If anyone can name a bigger biker gang shootout in the last few decades (or ever), they should go ahead.  We have a great article, and this is a very rare event. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Not run-of-the-mill American crime; article in good shape.  Spencer T♦ C 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again. As the CNN article states, the only injured/dead are the biker gangs themselves (no bystanders or police). This was also far less worse than it could have been as police were tipped there was going to be an issue, so this is just gang violence, far too common in the US unfortunately. --M ASEM (t) 20:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Prove it, please, Masem. Please list the last biker gang dispute that left 9 dead, or even gang of any sort dispute that left nine dead. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From the numbers here 5-6 (mostly intercity) gang members are killed every day in the US. 9 is by no means a stretch. The only reason this is getting coverage is 1) it's Waco and/or Texas which has a notoriety for guns and 2) its biker gangs - mostly white - as opposed to minority-heavy intercity gangs. It's the usual press bias at work here. --M ASEM  (t) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute has left 10 dead, Masem, not nine. And you haven't answered my question.  When is the last time 10 were left dead (18 injured, 170 arrested) in one such incident.  It almost sounds like some sort of Mancastrian Soccer Hooliganism, innit? μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're focusing too much on the numbers. Gang violence happens on the US, period, and not in small numbers. Like bombings that have happened in the Middle East. Here, moreso, the situation was one specifically created by the gangs involved. It wasn't the government, it wasn't a protest, it was rival gangs that decided they were going to have a shootout. Fortunately, the police were alerted and make sure to arrive quickly and with medical help as to prevent any civilian deaths or injuries (which would have been a factor for ITN posting if there were significant civilian injuries), or any police deaths or injuries. It may be a large shootout, and the subsequent arrest a rather large cleanup, but the main event was something that was pure posturing and aggression by the gangs. It's no different than much of the violence that we overlook throughout the rest of the US, or what happens in the Middle East. It's when that violence spills over to civilians that is when it becomes a more significant story to review. --M ASEM (t) 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bikers aren't civilians? Citation needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, Donald Eugene Chambers was an actual soldier. But he wasn't in Waco. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In this very specific case, I'm talking to people that were not involved with the fight (that were not members of the gangs) and were not police officers. Or to put it in a better way, no bystanders were harmed per sources, as opposed to the word "civilians". --M ASEM  (t) 01:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's much better. I still find it hard to assume everyone killed or injured was literally in the fight (i.e. shooting). Don't know yet, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even newest stories say the dead are yet fully IDed but police still think them all bikers. I will note I might reconsider based on one more recent story I just saw: CNN reporting that bikers in the nearby region are arming themselves and traveling to TX, indicating more violence may be coming. --M ASEM  (t) 01:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't doubt it. It's not the sort of thing that groups that consider themselves families just forget. Yet, there too, bikers may be killed for just wearing the wrong patch or catching a stray bullet. Regular Joes who just wanted to ride bikes, have fun and come along for support (in a bloodless "show of force" way) when things go down. Not inherently shittier people or worth less than cops or even pregnant women. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And for a lot of us, riding motorcycles is what makes bikers special. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the Bandidos aren't exactly white. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the second time, a bunch of stupid Americans shooting other stupid Americans. It's great and an advocacy of the right to bear arms, second amendment, God Bless America, etc etc, but honestly, it's just a stupid joke when you have a bunch of idiots shooting each other and we suddenly need to promote it here.  Idiocy personified, and already way down on the BBC website for international readers, behind "EU backs migrant crisis naval force"...  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - 170 arrests. Not your typical gang fight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plaintive heartfelt oppose, not yet more American sporting fixtures. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support That's an uncommon number of dead, wounded and arrested, for any skirmish not in an official warzone. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that this is not notable, as evidenced by the responses to my below nom.--WaltCip (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Medeis. See closed nomination below as well. 109.252.243.234 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC) — 109.252.243.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Medeis supports this. Do you mean Masem? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean Medeis. The arguments Medeis gives for posting, are to me, convincing reasons not to support.  I am surprised that this nomination was not deleted by an Admin.  Based on the short time lapsed from the below nomination, it seems a waste of time if not disruptive.  109.252.243.234 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC) — 109.252.243.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's sort of how I feel about Masem's argument. If only bikers were civilians bystanders, that'd be a support. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Masem, but I don't think his argument was that bikers are not civilians, but that gang members are not (in their own parlance, natch) civilians. The fatalities in this shootout were, AFAIK, all combatants. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Still seeing no word on that, yet. But maybe. I hope so. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm no fan of bikers (cyclists yes, bikers no!) – or of Texas, particularly – but stupid Americans shooting other stupid Americans is not the language of reasoned debate, nor is the blustering anti-American rant that follows that phrase. Sca (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the bright side, Nigeria isn't going that route, and that article was literally written by Confidence. The Irish, French, Australians and Chinese don't seem to be, either. Mexico is pointing fingers, but at biker culture, not American. Seems the gun=politics thinking doesn't apply to this case, even in American news (at least by the three stories I checked.)
 * More importantly, this is definitely "in the news", at least out there. Nigeria also reports 22 extra perhaps prematurely reported arrests. That's a lot in itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Why does Medeis get credit when Waltcip started the previous nomination? It's right below. Waltcip should receive the credit.Correctron (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Give WaltCip credit, even though he both admitted he posted this to see it fail then asked for it to close an hour later.  My concern is for the readers, and I don't care about the credit, which he should definitely get. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will graciously accept credit for the ITN nomination if this is posted to the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't get credit for anything. Your "nomination" was worded in a way that encouraged opposition and then you withdrew after just three comments (in 75 minutes) on the grounds that 'consensus seems clear'. That's not a good look at all. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First I am offered credit and then I am told I don't deserve it - make up your minds, folks. Anyway, consensus was clear at the time I made my nomination. I saw no reason to keep it open for longer when the arguments to oppose were as strong as they were. It is not uncommon for ITN candidates to receive early closures.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 75 minutes and 3 comments does not equate to consensus, unless, of course, you wanted it to fail. Which you did. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Walt's previous nomination was as bad-faith as any I've seen here. In fact, it was bogus, and should be removed before it has a chance to get archived. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - although gun shootings are common in the US, a gang battle on this scale is highly unusual and it is reported on numerous news sites. -Zanhe (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready, given excellent state of article, and strong support if we ignore comments that denigrate Americans (for being Americans?). μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * who were involved in the previous discussion. Personally, not sure if ready and not really the nominators decision to make. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have asked at the Ref Desk, and apparently there's never been a comparably deadly conflict, anti=american nonsense notwithstanding. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dusted off a few old tomes and found the Goingsnake Massacre, which killed eleven. Had Wikipedia and "the media" been around in 1872, we'd have probably noted that one, too. MOVE also had one that killed eleven in 1985, but that was mostly a fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The media" were around in 1872. They were called "newspapers". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Motorcycles were around in 1884, but called petrol cycles. And flying robots showed up in 428 BC. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I don't see a convincing case for putting a gang shootout with no broader implications on ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Broader implications. Even regular shootings have them. The largest American shootout should have the largest fallout. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were people hurt who will take time to recover, and people arrested who will either be released without charges or shall have their day in court. By "broader implications", I mean a more significant social or political impact. The Philadelphia derailment, for instance, temporarily shut down one of the busiest passenger rail links in the world and has prompted a debate over transportation funding and safety in the United States. The death of Freddie Gray sparked a nationwide protest movement, as well as rioting in one of the country's major industrial cities. In this shootout, 10 gang members died. That's a high toll for a single incident, at least in the developed world, and I'm not going to howl that it's a great disservice if this item is ultimately posted to ITN -- but gang violence is quite commonplace in the United States, the only people killed in this case were members of notorious gangs, and this incident (with its apparent absence of truly "innocent" victims) hasn't prompted any sort of massive public outcry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it have been different if the Waco bikers were black? That's a quote, but also a question at least some Twitter outrage is asking. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for ITN posting gang rivalries and school bullying (nevertheless same) is not looking appropriate to me. -The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 03:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as demonstrated by the 170 arrests, this is not a run-of-the-mill incident. Also, TRM really needs to dial back the rhetoric. This is not a forum for him to spew his ignorance. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ignorant about noting that this is a bunch of stupid people whose right to bear arms has resulted in this massacre. This sort of thing doesn't happen in most civilised nations.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, you used this as a forum to rail against America. Again. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that any non-American who cops an anti-American attitude is revealing how envious and jealous they are of us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally green dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of John Deere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jealousy is just about the last emotion evoked when I read about the continual slaughter that goes on the US. Yet some of you are so proud of it.  It's most odd.  My position is clear, this kind of thing is parochial and absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Yet some of you are so proud of it." That's one of the most absurd statements I've ever read on this site. I have never claimed to be proud of continual slaughter. You really need to do a better job of hiding your anti-American contempt. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I should also note the contradiction between the blurb and the article; the former claims 10 deaths and the latter says only 9. One or both will need to be corrected if this item is to be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I must say I strenuously oppose this item's own nominator marking this as ready and edit-warring when unmarked. This is not how ITN/C is supposed to work. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "ready" mean here? I would think it means the article is acceptable for ITN if consensus approves putting it in ITN. Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the article Bandidos Motorcycle Club lists five regions they operate in (United States, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Germany) - this has significance to other regions of the world that have violence associated with bikie gangs and drug dealing. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , that would be significant if there was a concern that retribution might occur in those other regions you mention. But what I take from the article is that the other groups involved were fledgling clubs trying to break away from the Bandidos' oversight. If there are in fact reports of retaliation elsewhere in the world, then I would change to support. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Article is in decent shape, but I can't help thinking this is a one-day story ... it's not even in the 15 stories on the front page of BBC World now. Black Kite (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose 's reasoning above describes the situation perfectly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - For those of you too young to remember, Lugnuts' comment in the section below was (presumably) intended as ironic, in reference to the infamous David Koresh situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rust in Peace? Apparently not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Notable, but still parochial story for ITN with little historical imprint. That said, with all due respect to human life, it would be a totally different story, had the same number died in a school shooting, for example. As for arrests, we don't know what will happen then, may be they will be released in two days or so. Brandmeistertalk  15:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If their friends can raise $17 million in bail cash. School shootings are relatively far more routine, and even with the same number of dead, there would be no mass arrests or complex investigation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – I would have supported, but as happens not infrequently here at civilised [sic] ITN, this item is fast fading from being ... in the news. (What they say about fish and house guests also applies to news.) Sca (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This comment doesn't make a lot of sense. It is still ~5 days newer than the oldest ITN story.  Why would you move from support to (implied) neutral just because a couple days have past?  Is it not fresher than the current oldest stories regardless? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a valid criticism – of ITN and by extension English WP. (BTW, I never voted support.) Sca (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two hours fresh. One hour. 15 minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – After reflection, I have to switch to Kudzu1's side of the debate. The people involved (on the biker side) seem to be sociopaths of slight political or cultural significance, Easy Rider notwithstanding. (BTW, I absolutely hate extremely loud motorcycles, many of which are driven around here with ruthless aggression.) Sca (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the already stated reasons; if this grows into something larger(which is very possible) maybe, maybe then. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is clearly not your run of the mill gang fight. Ten dead and 170 facing organized crime charges is not a routine occurrence, even in the United States. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This should have the same outcome as the Indian rape death normally I would oppose this, but considering the posting of a single death of a 40-something yr old rape victim, I am quite surprised of the discrepancy in votes with this nom. India's rape ≈ US' shootings. Nergaal (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Waco biker gang shooting

 * Neutral as nom.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A shoootout between rival biker gangs, especially in the US, is more expectable than an ordinary shooting. This is similar to any other deadly criminal shootout anywhere in the world. While notable in its own right, I don't think it's ITN-worthy. Brandmeistertalk  14:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't associate Waco with mass killings.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, this is not a surprising event given the locale and groups involved. --M ASEM (t) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus seems clear, so I think we can probably close this nom now.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] IIHF World Championship

 * Support pending article improvement - The final article should have a background section like the 2014 final, but otherwise this seems ready to go. (I do beg the need for keeping the final separate from the championship, but that's not a question for ITN to decide). --M ASEM (t) 22:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Canada defeats Russia. Correctron (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the lead is incomplete, that are dab links and the point Masem makes is a good one: if this is as expanded as a final article gets, it shouldn't be split off. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The background section has been added now, so marking as ready. Brandmeistertalk  17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Canada won their 25th title 6-1. This is clearly not much of a sport; more of a ritual. Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to call you out. It`s the first gold since 2007. This tournament has been running since the 20s and most of those wins were before 1960. Think a little harder before commenting next time.Correctron (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is listed at ITNR, so objections based on importance are invalid. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a first win in eight years is hardly a ritual.--70.27.231.57 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support sport event of the year not only in my country. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR and good to go quality. I'd have nominated it myself. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready - As noted by The Herald and Brandmeister (who marked this ready), I have expanded the article this morning. Thus, it is now up to ITN standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Chinx

 * Oppose While a sudden death, I'm trying to figure out how this person is a leader in the field (considering rap artists). --M ASEM (t) 16:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No charting singles or other indicators of being a leader in that field.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rapper shot dead? Stop the presses! Absolutely nothing distinguishes this rapper from the approximately seven billion other rappers in the world. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Couple Niggas" & "I'm A Coke Boy" just don't seem like big hits to me...--86.139.59.158 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Canonization of Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas and Mariam Baouardy

 * Comment This was an expected result from the Vatican recognizing Palestine as a state which was recently closed as no consensus. --M ASEM (t) 14:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Contra Masen, it has nothing to do with the Vatican's recognition of Palestine as a state - the latter is a question of foreign relations (don't forget that the Pope is also a head of state) while this is a purely religious matter. The first modern saints for a particular territory are certainly noteworthy and the news has been widely reported. Prioryman (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposing this, but it is tied to the previous ITNC item. --M ASEM (t) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, although the article updates need a bit of work and sourcing. I've seen it reported that they are the first ever Arab saints, which I find surprising. That might be considered for the blurb if accurate. Formerip (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose neither first "Palestinian" nor first "Arab" saints is anywhere near accurate. Any such claim ignores about 2000 years of history, and this is not the place for political grandstanding. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're able to name a previous Arab saint, then that clears that up. So, are you? Formerip (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll assume out of charity that you don't realize that Jesus was a Galilean who spoke Aramaic and that you have never heard of the Coptic Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church, Eritrean Catholic Church, Maronite Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Church (not all of which are strictly Arabic) and Malta or people like Brigitte Gabriel (who's still alive, of course). μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Medeis, did you actually read my question? Formerip (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear goodness, there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of Arab saints venerated by the Roman Catholic Church. Abakuh, Arethas (martyr), Abraham of Arbela, and that's before I even got out of the "A"s.  There have even been Roman Catholic saints from the land of Palestine, Zebennus (Bishop of Eleutheropolis) is one.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those are actually Arabs, though. They're people from ancientland who lived in what are today Arab countries. Formerip (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware you were allowed to redefine Arab for your own purposes so you can justify your own wrongness. The term "Arab" for people living in the Middle East is quite old, in many cases older than these saints.  See Philip the Arab for example.  It only serves your purpose to claim there have been no Arab saints to simply redefine Arabness to exclude people who would disprove the claim.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about how old the term "Arab" is. Palestine, for example, was conquered by the Arabs in the 7th century. The characters in the New Testament, early Christian leaders, people martyred by the Romans and so on were not Arabs because they lived several hundred years too early. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, plus the issue is Palestine, which was a Roman province, and includes just about all the saints of the New Testament. The point is clear that the claim is meaningless unless one ignores history and linguistics entirely and  adopts a very specific political POV. We should not do so, nor make an item that is nowhere a headline an ITN listing. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I support including this on notability grounds. But when people present actual, demonstratably false things as though they were true, one should show the sources which proves them wrong.  There can have been earlier Palestinian and Arabic Roman Catholic saints prior to now, it wouldn't mean diddly-squat about the significance of this event either way.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notable in light of the recognition...combine the two..120.62.41.35 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * These two nuns died many decades, if not a century, before the Vatican accepted an embassy from the West Bank. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this has less international significance than the ITN proposals about recognition of Palestine, or the Armenian issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks like Pope Francis has canonised dozens already. Not sure why this is so much more important unless we are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. It should be expected when you recognize a country. -The Herald (Benison) • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's nice news, but it isn't due. This isn't the Catholic Gazette. If the pope canonizes Steve Jobs, we can talk, but these new saints aren't quite household names and their nationality doesn't strike me as all that worthy of note. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Preakness Stakes

 * Weak support on the win, but absolutely oppose on the "healing part" of either blurb. We're not sensationalism or sympathetic or victimizing; let the press do that part. --M ASEM (t) 03:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support simpler altblurb. Perhaps the blurb also ought to mention the Triple Crown, which the victory keeps the horse in contention for.  But it definitely doesn't need to speculate on its social or political significance for the city of Baltimore. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK on any blurb proposed so far or adding stuff on triple crown. Whatever works.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb II. No need to mention "healing" but we should post the results of the race. Calidum T&#124;C 03:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb II, oppose anything else. Keep it simple, keep it NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb II. Notable race for the Triple Crown angle; any other effects of the race can be dealt with in the article, the blurb should be kept simple. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support don't we normally have "In horse racing, American Pharoah wins the 2015 Preakness Stakes, the second leg of the Triple Crown."? Otherwise, article is decent enough to support for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This doesn't actually seem to be in the news in any general way. The news sources supplied are either specialist tip-sheets like Daily Racing Form or a deadlink. Andrew D. (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb II. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:ITNR says Belmont Stakes (only if the Triple Crown was won), and the Kentucky Derby is automatically at ITN. Posting three US horse races within a month to ITN is too many. An actual Triple Crown win is already covered by ITNR, and posting random events from Baltimore to ITN due to Freddie Gray is not warranted. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see that this is actually in the news. The one specialist news source linked above (CNN) only mentions it in passing (and that story is 3 weeks old). Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your looking at the wrong stories. The derby is three weeks old, this was yesterday.- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much I respect the nominator, perhaps they should have linked the nomination to current news stories, then. The CNN story linked is from April 29. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That was the stuff used to support the part of the blurbs on Freddie Gray, the Baltimore riots and the Orioles game, not the horse race.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As others have said, the event is not on ITN/R and there is no evidence of substantial news coverage beyond one blog post and routine race reports. The same horse winning the first two Triple Crown races has been quite common (four times in the past 7 years) and there is nothing to suggest that this particular event was out of the ordinary (the thunderstorm was more meaningful than that blog link to Gray). Probably support posting this in a few weeks, if the horse wins the Triple Crown - the first time in 30+ years. Fuebaey (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is now:    New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, NPR ... ?   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - article is in very good shape and story is definitely in the news in a general sense. See WSJ, ABC/AP, Wahsington Post, etc.  Opposes on teh lack of coverage are flat out wrong.
 * My personal preference is to post the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont when the triple crown was on the line (won or lost). That would be semi-equivalent to posting the Preakness when it is won by the KY Derby champ, but not posting the Belmont unless the triple crown is won.  My rationale is that the triple crown possibility raises the level of coverage/interest & importance for the Belmont regardless of the end result, but that Preakness win doesn't increase the interest in the Preakness itself.  Since the Preakness won by the Derby champ, I am neutral (would be opposed otherwise).  The Baltimore situation may make this year's race slightly more notable, but isn't enough to push to to support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Last year after the Triple Crown races(maybe during them) we tinkered with them on the ITNR list; I had suggested(and even briefly posted to the list) the Derby, Preakness if won by the Derby winner, and the Belmont if the Triple Crown was at stake, but consensus didn't quite get there. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Alt II Once again, ITNR is simply irrelevant. Something not being listed there is not grounds for opposing it, and the win is highly notable.  If ITNR is going to be the sole arbiter of postings we should just shut down this page, redirect it to ITNR's talk page, and get a robot to do the posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed, above it says, "please do not... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." This has extra notability than last year precisely because it's the second time in two years.  Also a rather unusual year for the race, whether it be the worst downpour since 1983, the Baltimore riots versus sports stuff, or whatever.  Promise, I will not be requesting this every year!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another minor comment: Speaking of NPR, and though I will accept whichever blurb consensus supports, the Preakness DOES have some special import this year in the wake of the Baltimore riots: this story notes a Pimlico official saying:""This year's Preakness, because of the unrest in Baltimore, I think is even more special ... it's something that the city needs to bring a little calming effect to everybody."   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment When deciding which of the 3 races to post to ITN, ITNR can serve a good guideline. If we post this race, we have to post 3 US horse races within a month to ITN since a Triple Crown win will automatically Belmont eligible per ITNR. All the Baltimore talk are just attempts to inflate the importance of a race that had the smallest field in over a decade with only 8 horses participating. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Article is in good shape and there appears to be consenus to post. Calidum T&#124;C 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose anything but the outcome of Kentucky Derby should not be posted o ITN. Unless there is a triple crown winner or something. Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why the Kentucky Derby matters so much and the Triple Crown, but not the other races? It seems like saying the first number and the winning numbers of a slot-machine jackpot matter, but the second and third don't. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * VERY few people in the world care about horseracing, and of those who don't care, they probably heard of Kentucky Derby. I bet almost nobody outside of fans of this kind of competition has heard of Preakness (I for one knew of the Triple crown, and had no idea which two others are besides KD). Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is based on two deprecated premises, you own personal unfamiliarity (which you assume is general) and the fact that this event is "limited" to one country (even though participants are from all over North America in the least. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Devil's advocate here since I do support posting this : the winner of the KD is the only horse that then can win the Triple Crown, so as such, it is the most important race since it establishes who that horse is. Preakness would thus matter much less if a different horse won, since that means the Triple Crown is then forfeit for the year. That said, this year we have a potential TC still with the Preakness winner so we would still post per ITNR, though I agree in general there's no reason not to post all 3 races since that expands the ITNR aspect to 6 possible horse races a year instead of 5. --M ASEM  (t) 05:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thoroughbred racing is quite a stale sport because of inbreeding. For example, the winning times for the Kentucky Derby are much the same as they were a hundred years ago.  The events are therefore much the same each year and are mainly an occasion in the social calendar, like the Chelsea Flower Show or Crufts, rather than being really newsworthy.  When I look at the BBC World News to see what's actually making news, I don't see any horse races.  Putin scoring goals at ice hockey is a good story but what I'm working on is a new world champion that didn't even have an article.  News should be novel rather than reruns of the same old tired traditions. Andrew D. (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * perhaps you're unaware of WP:BLP1E. I very much expect your novel and new "world champion" at chopping wood to be sawdust in due course!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually the BBC has a bit of race coverage. Better than the USA, actually.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose On the basis that while BBC Sport mentions it, it's about 10 headlines deep on the specialist horse racing page. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - As noted above, I am personally doubtful that the Preakness should be posted regularly. However, several of the opposes raise arguments that are false, based on the nominator not supplying mainstream sources, and have not responded after this has been pointed out for >24 hours.  Thus, there is a rather clear consensus to post based on strength of argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By the supports' arguments, a triple crown in horseracing should be posted 3 times, and close-calls should be posted twice every 2 out of 3 years. This seems rather excessive to me. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the posting, the more the merrier and consensus definitely exists for this to be on the main page. Other claims of "too many horse races" are simply desperate IDONTLIKEIT claims.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Flora MacNeil

 * Oppose On importance - given that our article is only using the obits as sources (and nothing else), and the shortness of the BBC obit compared to others that we post, it's begging for how important this person is. --M ASEM (t) 21:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality grounds, for M ASEM 's reasons. I'd be open to posting a more broadly referenced article that better substantiates her claim to preeminence in her field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Masem. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 04:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose wholesale awful article and if now define Gaelic singing as a field, then bring on the shopping bag designer, the Dutch toilet architects and the Brazilian wax museum owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Proton-M crash

 * Oppose unless this threatens to end the ISS mission (Which it doesn't appear to be). Regardless of the ITNR, this is a routine supply rocket (roughly one every 1-2 months) and unmanned. I don't see this as major news. (It begs some potential tightening of the ITNR element as well but that's a discussion for elsewhere). --M ASEM (t) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking myself, the reports I read had me confused as this being an ISS supply mission; it was a launch for a new telecom satellite but again, unmanned launch from the Russian space program which had had a number of problems of late, this still doesn't seem like news. --M ASEM (t) 17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. This doesn't strike me as major news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment if this genuinely is ITNR, then disregard the previous two opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ITNR does not mean it is automatically posted even if article quality is good. It's not a general debate on the nature of failed launches of any spacecraft, just that in this specific case, it is a launch of a rather routine unmanned craft to the ISS, which probably is not the same ilk as most other crashes. --M ASEM (t) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it generally does mean it's posted regardless of your or any other opinion, as long as the quality is sufficient. The key here is to determine if it actually meets the requirement of the description of ITNR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before, in light of the recent issue with "rigged elections" on the talk page most recently. ITNR is to take the guesswork out of classes of articles, and working if specific instances are notable enough, so as to not waste ITNC time discussing the classes. This may mean a news story that is classified as ITNR may, per IAR, not be appropriate ITN material even if the article is perfectly in spec. --M ASEM  (t) 17:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've said what I said, but in more words. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Cut-rate unmanned satellite launch system crashes (again), film at 11. No one was hurt or killed and the satellite wasn't encrusted with gold and precious jewels. Not ITN material. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Film at 11"? Jesus,  just how old are you? :D μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that it is ITNR material, according to the ITNR list If you feel that this type of event should not be ITNR, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Aside from this being ITNR, it seems indicative of some sort of major problem with Proton rockets, the major rocket of the Russian space program, as there has been a series of mishaps. This is high-level news in many outlets and readers might want to learn about this event and the rocket involved. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because ITNR is a guideline and by its own text is not an automatic guarantee of posting. Simply put this just isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion.72.184.150.177 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The media would seem to disagree with you that it is not notable. Rocket launches are still rare events that readers want to learn about- and this particular failure in the longest running space program on Earth seems to reflect some sort of problem. This clearly is a failed rocket launch per the ITNR criteria. If you feel that this type of event should not be ITNR, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not a news ticker, so just because the news follows it doesn't mean we need to include it. The issue is that ITNR is "failed launches" but realistically that's fine if it is manned, or a launch of a major space probe; routine satellite launches or delivery missions to the ISS is not the same. --M ASEM (t) 19:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The ITNR listing does not have "manned" as a limitation or any other limitation at present, though we can certainly discuss adding it or outright removal. I'm just reading what it says now. I further agree that we are not a news ticker but we should be responsive to the news to some degree.  This is something that readers might want to learn about. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose ITNR assumes overwhelming consensus as a matter of policy and there's no such consensus here. Pretty soon we'll be listing scrubbed launches at this rate. simply not notable enough. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A scrubbed launch(a cancelled event) is not a failed launch(an attempt that is unsuccessful), so I don't see that happening. Feel free to propose removing failed launches from the list. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to remove failed launches from ITNR as long as we use the fact that individual ITNR-based suggestions may be reviewed for specific merit, by design. Most failed launches are clearly ITN, this specific one some believe isn't. --M ASEM (t) 23:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you seem to be saying that failed launches are ITNR, except when they aren't. If that's the case then there does seem little point in having failed launches on the list at least in the general fashion that it is now, and there should be some sort of qualifier.. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying at all. The majority of failed rocket launches to date are ITN items, so an ITNR item makes sense. But there are rare cases - such as the case of a unmanned telecom satellite launch from an already-failing Russian space agency - that, while a significant loss of money, is otherwise par for the course. Same with the unmanned supply craft to ISS last month. It's simply the smart allowance that ITNR has built in to question the exceptional cases of otherwise a common ITNR item. --M ASEM (t) 01:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most launches are of this type, so I'm not seeing how this is any sort of exception. If you're saying that only launches of notable space probes or manned launches are notable, we should say so.  It's very simple to do so. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) There's no need for me to do any such thing. ITNR is a long deprecated bit of twittery, no different from the dead and forgotten minority subject category. It's just that certain people insist on their minor sporting events, so we have a strong Welsh/Arkansas/Manchester/Caber toss/Ulster/Bocce faction, no offense to the Welsh.  If the majority of votes are opposes, as in this case, the item obviously disqualifies.  Period. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is so obvious then I suggest you remove it from the list yourself if you feel this discussion should be considered a proposal to remove it from the list. --331dot (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Having all rocket launch failures in ITNR was silly last time we posted one and it's still silly. It doesn't even have a no fireworks clause for crying out loud. Formerip (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree that it is "silly" Space flight is still a big deal and dangerous(even with unmanned launches).  No one is suggesting that mere fireworks meets the definition of a rocket launch. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: For anyone who is counting, so far the only support !vote is from 331dot, who has been hard at work trying to convince all of the numerous and growing oppose !votes that they are wrong for procedural reasons. Again, ITN/R assumes consensus, which clearly doesn't exist for this low-impact, no-story unmanned rocket bust. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interpretation of my actions; I'm not trying to convince anyone that they are "wrong for procedural reasons"; I'm trying to direct people to the proper forum for the proper discussion. It's also not true that this is "low-impact, no story"; This is still on the front page of NBC and CNN, and is on the front of the BBC's world section. A problem with the oldest space program in the world is notable. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I think that's synthesis, honestly, at this point. The blurb we're discussing is a launch failure of a routine satellite delivery by an unmanned rocket, not a problem with the Russian space program writ large. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Given this discussion I have started a discussion to change the listing at this section. ITNR is for those items which have clear consensus on the merits; when something doesn't it's time to look at changing it. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohammed Morsi sentenced to death
Changed it. It's still a former head of state for notability and its across mainstream media.120.62.27.27 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there is nothing about it in mainstream news media, so I'm assuming it's someone's wishful thinking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - It's not Mubarak, it's Morsi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You had best change the title also, as it's a BLP violation. Also, Saddam Hussein was sent to the gallows long after the Romanian dictators, the Ceaușescus, were put down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the title. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My bad, forgot the title. As for Saddam that's what I said in relation to Ceausescu...it was less than 2 decades later. Furthermore, this trial as eminently more notable than the individually affiliated shooter below.120.62.27.27 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "not since Romania" part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's rare. Thrice in about 30 years.120.62.27.27 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so you're saying just two since the Romanian situation, i.e. Saddam and Morsi. It gets to be a fine line between "legitimate" execution vs. assassination as part of a coup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya true, with the veneer of "legality" vs. outright extrajudicial (a la Rwanda/Burundi since then).120.62.27.27 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's the final "court of appeals" after the original verdict. Much the same as the death sentence below that posted.120.62.27.27 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Good point...consider combining it? The dual result is indicative of something sinister...120.62.27.27 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC) This is his conviction. A death penalty as a result of a show trial is even more notable.120.62.27.27 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A former president being sentenced to death is pretty incredible if you ask me. The article seems to be in pretty good shape, although an eye may need to be kept on it as this sort of high profile thing can lead to edit wars. Miyagawa (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The court ruling has been reportedly referred to the Grand Mufti for confirmation and the final decision is expected on June 2. Brandmeistertalk  10:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the decision is finalized and/or the execution occurs. (Probably won't take as long as it will with the Boston bomber.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support former leader of significant regional power sentenced to dead. For what, are we waiting? --Jenda H. (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would be the third time the result of a show trial against a former Egyptian president would be at ITN in a month (the previous ITN is even still listed). LoveToLondon (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Egyptian courts should have consulted with Wikipedia before announcing these decisions, to make sure to space them farther apart. Also, how many of those "show trials" have resulted in a death sentence against a former leader? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the sentence is carried out. I kind of see LoveToLondon's point; Mubarak at least resigned his office before his trial and conviction; in this case is is no surprise that the people who forced Morsi out now want to have him put to death- and I think we posted his conviction.   It will be notable if and when he is actually put to death. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support -Generally i oppose stuff like this but as mentioned above, a former president sentenced to death is news, moreso when he was the "first" democratically elected president in Egypt's history..this could very well be the end of democracy in Egypt..the date and time of his execution does not matter at this stage..-- Stemoc 11:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He's the one who ended it. He was democratically elected and then declared himself dictator. He is now reaping what he sowed. Hopefully his execution will be a bit less brutal than the way Kadafi was dispatched. And if democracy returns, maybe his demise will serve as a lesson. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support He's a former head of state that's been sentenced to death. That said, if he spends anymore time in the ITN section of the Front Page we should start charging rent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Noting that we already posted his 20 yr sentence prior the fact that a former head of a major nation is now sentenced to death is moreso.  (This is different from the Boston marathon bomber - he was convicted, then sentenced, so we posted his conviction and not so much his sentencing).  I don't think we should wait for it to be carried out because 1) it sensenationalizes the news and 2) I would expect there is a chance of appeal or the like. The sentencing here is what is the big factor. --M ASEM  (t) 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know Egyptian legal procedure but the only thing I have read about any sort of appeal is a nonbinding review by a Muslim theologian . 331dot (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * : "Regardless of the mufti's ruling, the sentences can be appealed.". --M ASEM (t) 14:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The court has...only the so-called "court of appeals." Same as other countries have last reprieves.120.62.27.27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support/merge last time this happened was with Saddam. This sentence is quite unlikely to actually happen, but the ?mock? trial outcome is so shocking that it should be posted. Apparently being president of Egypt has a really, really high chance to screw you over. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Before this can be posted to ITN, the Trial section of that article has to be updated to give an overview of the different trials against him and their status. The blurb is not correct, the court has not yet sentenced him to death. In this trial the court will make the final ruling on June 2nd. They have at least one more show trial ongoing against him that will likely result in yet another conviction soon (might be another death penalty - several people already received their second death penalty in the current trial), and the reader should be able to get a good overview of the different trials if each month the latest show verdict against him is posted to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support HiLo, even the BBC have a headline saying he's been sentenced to death. The fact that "religious authorities" need to give their opinion is somewhat irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It is somewhat relevant that the court itself has not yet given a final verdict. And that is separate from the fact that an appeal is possible after the final verdict of the court. How many ITN blurbs should be created for the current Egyptian show trials (this one would be the third ITN blurb within a month), and at what points? Will it be a new ITN blurb if the final verdict in two weeks will be only a life sentence? And will there be another ITN blurb for the likely death sentence from the next (unrelated) show trial against him that starts in a week? LoveToLondon (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the most extreme sentence so even if more sentences come down, there's no point to add more, he's got one death penalty against him. In contrast, if this was more X years in prison atop the previous 20, I would oppose this ITN, as that's not a major change from the last sentence. If there is an appeal and it fully exonerates him of any crimes, that might be reason to post again, but I can't see us otherwise posting the result of an appeal that simply diminishes the death penalty to a life sentence. --M ASEM (t) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * an appeal and it fully exonerates him of any crimes is impossible since there are at least three separate trials with separate convictions and separate appeals. The article quality is absolute crap to the level that it even states what he is accused of in the next (third) trial that starts in a week as reason for the death sentence in the current (second) trial. The nomination even named the wrong ex-President initially, so why did noone of the Support votes ever bother to check how much the rest is also wrong? LoveToLondon (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely for itn. a former president and all..--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is subject to appeal and judicial review. This can wait until and if he's executed, given he's already got a 20 year sentence. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unmarked Ready Rambling boy does not seem to be able to conduct even basic checking of the article and the sources when marking an article as ready. The show trial against him where they will give him the next death sentence for passing state secrets starts in one week. The show trial that ended this week was a separate trial. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * C'mon HiLo, no need for the comment on the editor, you already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article should be correct now. Initial media reports got it wrong; Morsi was actually sentenced to death for the prison break (as reflected in the altblurb I added) and the decision is pretty much final, as even if the grand mufti says he don't like it, his opinion is legally nonbinding. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This is definitely int. A former president charged with death although shouldn't we wait until he's executed? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Obviously meets notability criteria. How often are former heads of state given death sentences? (This being a kangaroo court notwithstanding.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to go ahead and remark ready with the needed changes to the article, considering there appears to be overwhelming consensus to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The quality of the relevant part of the linked article is not relevant, all that matters is which side has more votes? This is about a trial, and none of the Support votes seems to care that the Trial section of the article is still a complete mess that does not make it clear what the different trials and their statuses are. And the blurb is still wrong, the same sources that claimed he was already sentenced to death are the same unreliable sources that also got it wrong which trial this was. The court has not yet made a final decision whether or not there will be a death sentence - that will be on June 2nd. And this is not about appeals, currently there is not even final judgement by the first court. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's let an admin weigh in. There's a substantial wait/oppose component here with the same argument, that this will be the third posting related to his deposure, and his execution would make a fourth.  Even TDKR's support says this should be posted with the execution.  And if he's not executed, then this listing would have been a mistake in any case.  Waiting a year to get it right is no unbearable burden. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Comment" - Morsi's execution has received wide support. However, some Boston bombing suspect's execution received opposition. Okay: Morsi was a former President; the bomber was just a kid. Egypt experienced unrest; Boston was usually peaceful, even with low crime rate. Egypt has Arabic or Egyptian Arabia; Boston has American English. Morsi and the kid are disgraced by societies for their own actions. Am I missing something else? George Ho (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please leave the usual nationalist nonsense out of it. No one has said this should or should not be listed on that basis, and it is only you who bring inflammatory claims like kangaroo court here.  The issue is that we posted his conviction, and we'll post his execution when it comes.  Do you seriously think every step of the judicial review, mufti comment, and appeal process also needs posting?  Please show some respect to your fellow editors whether they are on the post immediately side or not. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you getting at, and why chiding me for my comments on comparisons? I was stating my analysis; I never intended to spark criticism toward this. I was anticipating a tolerant or supported comment, but I received scolding instead. --George Ho (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * George, I'm reading your comment above and I'm sorry but I don't get what your point is. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point: how is execution of a bomber different from or similar to execution of a disgraced leader? That's all I can ask. --George Ho (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize, it was Kudzu who used the word kangaroo (and HiLo who called it a show trial). But it is still this very odd comparison between a suicide bomber who failed at suicide and a pudgy dictator who ordered he deaths of the "citizens" he was elected to serve that bothers me.  The basic point is that the verdict and the sentence, both parts of one trial, should not be posted separately.  The actual execution is perfect, until we start resurrecting people for appeals.  I am pretty sure resurrections are generally frowned upon in trials by Abrahamic courts, and count as double jeopardy under common law. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was talking also about votes. Why do many oppose posting suicide bomber's execution sentence, while many others support posting Morsi's? --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that in the Boston Marathon bomber there are two separate points of where the conviction is made, and where the sentencing is made. We agreed to post on the conviction given that he was certainly assured multiple life sentences if not death because of it, so the actual sentence is trivial and a repeat posting. Here, in this trial, the conviction and sentencing are - for all purposes - the same thing due to how case law works there. If they had separate convictions and sentencing, we'd probably have posted at the conviction and not posting the sentencing. --M ASEM  (t) 02:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2nd blurb is more correct as sources updated the original claim.120.62.26.163 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. An former head of state receiving a death sentence is obvious ITN material. Who cares if it is theoretically appealable and who cares if we also end up posting the actual execution if it happens. It's an important enough event for none of that to matter. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per FormerIP.  Jus  da  fax   02:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per FormerIP. Neljack (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Request - Can we not link to Wadi el-Natrun prison (a stub) on the main page till it is adequately expanded? sorry for having to ping you, but few residents here take such matters as seriously as you do, and it's been there for too long. How about "...for his role in a prison break during the 2011 revolution" instead? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Elisabeth Bing

 * Unopposed Interesting life, article says "Bing wanted to go to France to learn the method from Lamaze, but was not able to as Mount Sinai Hospital could not afford to send her there.[3] However, she had the good fortune of meeting Marjorie Karmel, who had published the book Thank You, Dr. Lamaze, in 1959. Karmel had learned the method directly from Lamaze in Paris, and she in turn taught it to Bing.[3] In 1960, the two went on to found the American Society for Psychoprophylaxis in Obstetrics, now known as Lamaze International." μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose As Medeis points out, it's not that she developed the Lamaze method (which I would consider a significant achievement) but only help popularize in the States and subsequently creating the foundation. Also, this is another article that's entirely built on obit references, and while not in bad shape from sourcing, begs the question of importance. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Battle of Ramadi (2014–present)
(UTC)
 * If it would actually happen, it would be a medium-important event in one of several ongoing civil wars in that region (Iraq, Syria, Yemen). For any of these civil wars I see a point in having them under ongoing as long as there are no other important ongoing topics. Adding a blurb for each battle in any of these civil wars would be at least one blurb per week. I would support to add Iraqi Civil War to Ongoing after the article has been updated to contain prose summaries in the 2013-2015 sections and the bullet list in the 2013 section moved to a separate article. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support - escalation, article seems updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2015
 * Comment – well according to Vicenews there is heavy fighting for a year. I support to add Iraq civil war as ongoing event.--Jenda H. (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also support readding Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to ongoing. There have been enough high-profile developments recently to warrant it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ongoing" listing is not just about whether an event is literally ongoing or not. Continual updates to the target article is an absolute requirement. Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2015) has received a total of one update (this one) since April 1.  (That article is a subarticle of Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) which has ZERO 2015 events listed itself.)  ISIL has a few updates since May 1, but still far short of what I would consider continual updates.
 * Now, if Ramadi does falls, that could certainly warrant a blurb, but ongoing is not justified now or later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Ramadi has now fallen. This is an important city.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending update considering the recent news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending update. I fixed a line or two but it needs work. Jus  da  fax   01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and marked ready. The last of special forces flee the city and thus ISIL makes it all. -The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 09:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Valenzuela factory fire

 * Support While the news articles point out safety is not great in Manila, this is a serious enough accident that there likely will be criminal activities. Article could use a map if possible but that's far from an ITN posting issue. --M ASEM (t) 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nearly half the death total of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, and reminding of a similar incident a few years ago, at Bangladesh if I recall correctly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Comment" - I changed the link to fix redirection. George Ho (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support --Jenda H. (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major disaster with heavy loss of life. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sentenced to death

 * Support: Big news, major development in a very high-profile case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted when he was convicted knowing full well the question on the table was going to be a death sentence or multiple life sentences. We don't need to post again. --M ASEM  (t) 19:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: Significant but we did post the conviction. I would argue that the actual execution of the sentence would be more worth posting if/when that happens Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. We posted the conviction, and another mention is not needed. Mamyles (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until or if the sentence is carried out. These things tend to take a while. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - the end to a high profile case world wide.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's nowhere near the end. Even forgetting the many years before it's carried out, there will be the usual yammering from death penalty opponents who call it murder (which it isn't) and those arguing that a guy who blew up children still should have a right to life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's funny (not!) how the righteous Europeans who say the US shouldn't use the death penalty, especially on such a trivial terrorist attack, and who also often criticize Americans' right to bear arms, seem willing to put up with terror attacks on a much grander scale. Some cause and effect there, maybe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a terrorist who contributed to the death of less than a handful of people is going to be executed. So what?  Alternatively, he could spend five, ten, twenty, forty years on Death Row courtesy of the US justice system.  This is nothing more than the conviction which was already posted. Handing another headline to the exact same story, just because the US, like North Korea, the Zetas, ISIS etc, has barbaric "justice" is not what we're here to do.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This forum is not for you to provoke other editors and/or heap contempt on America's justice system, TRM, you can do that elsewhere. Everymorning   talk  20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's nothing of the sort, it's a rational comparison to justice systems who murder their "criminals", or worse, leave them waiting for execution for decades. Simple as that.  If you'd like to discuss it further, feel free to leave me a message.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article was featured twice In the News. Even when sources say that such incident was a mere familial plan, something tells me that there may have been hidden sources who came up with the plan. How can two random youngsters obtain a mechanical bomb? As for the death penalty, I can be sure that the convicted will try to appeal the sentence somehow. I don't know how many years he has left until execution. Re-nomination will be likely if he is executed (probably by lethal injection). George Ho (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a pressure cooker bomb, and surprisingly easy to make (the instructions were published in a magazine). In any case, this is not the place for discussion of conspiracy theories. I will say that it will be notable if he is in fact executed, or just dies on death row due to the automatic appeal process.--WaltCip (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Federal executions move more swiftly, especially if the defendant doesn't appeal. McVeigh was executed within two years IIRC. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Four years. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, McVeigh was executed only four years after conviction, but that is mostly because he decided three years post-conviction that he wanted to waive most of his remaining appeals, which greatly accelerated the process. The current average stay on federal death row is still 15 years.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose we shouldn't have posted before, but waited. We even shouldn'ter post a second time. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until execution per Baseball Bugs. That would be the justice's final word of historical significance. Brandmeistertalk  20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support As I stated in the previous discussion, we should not have posted the news of his conviction since it was on the same level as the sun rising in the East. This is the real news. As for whether or not he is actually executed, that is neither here nor there. The sentence is major news in itself. Some of the other oppose votes appear to be a case of I DON'T LIKE IT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most of the oppose votes are based on either the idea he has been convicted, which was posted, and his sentence is neither here nor there. I'm not seeing a single DONTLIKEIT argument.  Or should we take your position as advocating the posting of every death sentence levelled by the US justice system?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because this is a major story, and we have good articles to highlight. How do I know it is a major story?  News treats it that way.  Follow the sources, not my own opinion.  As always, follow the sources.  If this is a major headline, AND we have a good article to highlight, there isn't any valid reason NOT to post it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we don't always follow the sources, because the news likes to sensationalize things. Right now, I'm watching news tweets from respectable sources like the BBC and CNN gushing about trivia about the death penalty in the US. It's news to make people feel good about the resulting decision, but for all matters, his fate was determined at conviction - he wasn't walking away a free man. We should not give in to sensationalism reporting. --M ASEM  (t) 20:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is one of the more absurd things I've read from you Jayron. A death penalty for a terrorist in America? Bound to stir up the the guttersnipes and you're advocating ITN mirrors that kind of trash.  We did the conviction, he's been given a death penalty which will add an extra few sentences to his article, which we've already posted, and to what benefit to our readers?  This isn't a tabloid encyclopedia, it's a real one.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except, it isn't tabloid sources that are making this a top story, it's the serious journalism ones. Again, the problem is that you want to make ITN a vehicle to change the world, not one that reflects it.  It isn't for us to say what is important, merely reflect it.  That we wish it weren't important doesn't make it so.  It isn't about us and our decisions here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 06:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about tabloid sources. Of course it's headline news, it's an American story that strikes at the heart of American society.  But it's just the natural progression from his conviction.  We don't need to continually revisit the story.  He will appeal, so shall we post that?  How many Boston bomber stories do we need?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that some editors here think they are smarter than the sources. Don't let them carborundum you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for execution. Quite possible appeal from them, plus bad article quality. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming he uses his appeals, it could be years, even a decade, until he is actually executed. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support because US federal death sentences are relatively rare(I think) but I understand those who have pointed out that we already posted his conviction, so I could live with not posting it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Similar to the Costa Concordia, which was featured multiple times on ITN, we don't need blow-by-blow updates to the story. We posted the initial incident and the conviction; subsequent legal steps do not need individual ITN mentions.  Spencer T♦ C 21:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. A reason to post, albeit minor, is that "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev" is a doozy of a name to type for those readers who want to see the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The most obvious link otherwise is Boston bomber, which takes you to the story, and which of course includes the brothers' names in the lead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've already featured this case once. I don't think it is sufficiently important to warrant featuring again. After all, it was not a very deadly terrorist attack. Posting again would smack of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the execution. Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too recent to be posting Tsarnaev again.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Miyagawa (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We posted his conviction and it could be many, many years until he's actually executed, if he is.  No need to overdo one story. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. His conviction was expected, since his attorney admired he placed the bomb. The death sentence was unexpected and is in the brews internationally. Calidum T&#124;C 12:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty unfortunate typo of admitted you have there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait - This is definitely INT material and a death sentence here in the US in somewhat rare. This man is responsible for a terrorist attack that we (the US) haven't had since 9/11. His execution though can be overturned and instead the "Boston Bomber" may face a life in prison sentence which is also INT material because he was responsible of a terrorist attack on the US. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * AP: After Death Sentence, What's Next for Boston Marathon bomber
 * – Who knows? Marriage? University? A trip to Hawaii?
 * PS: Why isn't bomber capitalized? Sca (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "a death sentence here in the US in somewhat rare." I think you meant to say that a federal death sentence in the U.S. is somewhat rare (37 in all, only 3 after 1963, of which McVeigh was one). Death sentences in the U.S. generally are somewhat less rare (14 executions in the U.S. so far this year alone, and that despite a current controversy over lethal injection). - Tenebris 198.91.170.140 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] First warm-blooded fish
Opah has been reported in Science to be the first warm-blooded fish, a feature otherwise limited to birds and mammals. Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason why you so ardently refuse to use the template? What's your blurb?  Is Opah the target article?  Is it updated?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Close - First, no template used. Second, the claim is misleading and directly contradicts the text of the article - "However, it is not classed as a warm-blooded organism, because it does not have the features that other warm-blooded animals have."--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A template is not required but it significantly helps the nomination. (particularly as another editor can help that be completed) --M ASEM  (t) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - BBC.com calls it the first "fully warm-blooded" fish discovered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the tuna and sharks have been known to warm their blood temporarily during dives, with a need to resurface to recover. This is the first fish known to maintain a temperature well above ambient continuously. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting and notable discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Good ITN material. Very unusual and fascinating discovery, a true first. Article appears to be in decent shape. Jus  da  fax   20:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest we wait for someone who actually has a clue about the subject matter, e.g. User:Abductive to weigh in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant discovery, high quality and updated article. I was planning to nominate, but I am very glad others managed to do all the work first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. A problem, as I see it, is that the result is for Lampris guttatus, whose article is not yet updated. Although it is likely that Lampris immaculatus also has countercurrent heat exchange in its gills, the target article should not be Opah the genus. Anyway, somebody needs to update Lampris guttatus (by cutting and pasting) and make the blurb point to it, not Opah, and it should be ready. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Opah is awesome (just ate it for dinner) and this is a significant scientific find. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready as the article looks like it's in good shape and there seems to be broad consensus to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with altblurb. It is an interesting, but not super-significant, discovery. But it is very good ITN material. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The original blurb was only a space filler I rigged up when our negligent nominator neglected to use the template. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Burundian coup d'état attempt

 * Oppose while I sympathise that this could have become a big story, this is pretty much a case of "news that didn't actually happen". It's not even on the BBC homepage, and second to the capture of Ramadi on the world homepage.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - though they failed,it did happen and is notable. and has been mentioned world wide. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements - It failed, but we do have completion of this story which was a challenge to a standing national government. However, I would strongly suggest that we need resolution on the merge request that is pending. The failed coup should be in the main unrest article since the two events are tied together. --M ASEM (t) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] B.B. King

 * Support. I was in the process of nominating this myself. I would lean to RD but wouldn't object to a full blurb. Calidum T&#124;C 06:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support shoe in for RD and support for blurb when updated as well, cannot think of more important remaining blues performer, of a par with Johnny Cash and Ray Charles. μηδείς (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - A blurb is a fair consideration, but I don't think King's death is quite there. This isn't something that's going to be in the news for days. Even legends fit quite well in the RD section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD for now, wouldn't object to a blurb though. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 06:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - and no objection to full blurb. Iconic blues master with an influence on generations. Jus  da  fax   06:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, and a blurb wouldn't be a problem either. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD for notability but oppose on article quality, vast paragraphs without a single reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious support for notability, but article needs to be in good shape before posting.  Weak Oppose blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article has no tags at the moment, notability obvious. No need for blurb, this is what RD is for. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An assertion is not a rationale. μηδείς (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm say what? What are you going on about? 82.21.7.184 (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ready for Blurb strong and obvious support for blurb (per RfC, unless otherwise stated, supports count also as blurb supports) we may need some CN tags to address if there are actual problems, otherwise the entire article has at worst notable primary sources listed. 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unmark ready: Article has obvious and significant sourcing problems that should be addressed before posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please link to the RFC that said that a clear and unambiguous statement such as "Support RD" inherently supports a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD pending cleanup of citations - man was a legend in his field. Challenger l (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb: Article looks in good shape following some good work by Kudzu1. A real genius and giant in the world of blues. (B.B.King that is, not Kudzu1). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's getting there, anyway. Trying to get as much filled in as possible tonight before I turn back into a pumpkin. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb. Recent nominations (at least since I've been involved here) have set a very high bar for the death of a person receiving a blurb, especially when the death is from old age. So I disagree that all of the votes above are "automatic" votes for a blurb.
 * Having said that, I think variety in the items listed on the front page should be a factor for consideration, as well as the established criteria of article quality and newsworthiness. In the present instance, I support a blurb. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD. He is obvious for RD.  Oppose blurb unless someone can think of something more significant about the death than "X dies at age Y".  Dragons flight (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whoo! Okay, that should be all (or at least most) of the referencing problems dealt with. I have no more objections to posting now, although I certainly agree with Dragons flight that a blurb does not seem necessary; King was on hospice care for several weeks and his illnesses were well known, so it's not like his death comes as a major shock. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work. Agree this is ready and consensus clearly in favour of RD listing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. In general person dies of natural causes should never be a blurb IMO, no matter how top of the field that person is, unless the death will have long term ramifications, such as death of a major world leader, monarch, etc. This is what RD is for. &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 08:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD only per above. It seems RD is preffered even by those who wouldn't mind a blurb 86.139.59.158 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Good that it was posted to RD. However, I think it can warrant a blurb as they are mostly for politicians and the one-proper noun institution of Nobel laureates. We could have more general arts and culture (economic too if we get that) that is very rare (was the last one Robin Williams?). As an aside, a generation is getting wiped out. Ben E. King and Percy Sledge too in the same of a few weeks120.62.26.243 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Clear consensus for it. If considered necessary, a blurb can be further discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for RD; clearly merits an RD listing, though I'm not convinced a blurb is warranted(though like others I would not oppose it). 331dot (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of RD is to clean out the clutter of postings which say nothing more than "X dies at age Y." Only when the manner of death is itself newsworthy, such as Robin Williams was, is a blurb warranted.  Generally, old people dying of being old is not itself a newsworthy event.  In cases where a blurb is warranted for old people being old, it is generally done where there is likely to be highly newsworthy events surrounding the death, i.e. the memorial services would attract major world leaders, or otherwise become newsworthy events in their own right, for example as we did with Nelson Mandela.  B.B. King is certainly a towering figure in the world of music, but neither the manner of his death, nor the reactions to it, are likely to generate the sort of news coverage that makes the death worthy of a blurb.  THAT'S what the difference between RD and a blurb should be: if we don't need to say any more than "so-and-so died", then it goes to RD.  -_ Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this. Basically, if the world stops and catches its breath on news of the passing, we should make it a blurb - that was the case for important world leaders like Thatcher and Mandela, and for tragic, unexpected losses like Williams. I'm not seeing the world stopping to mourn for B.B. King though certainly are respecting his passing making it a clear RD. (This is why I had problems when we had a blurb for that German author a few weeks ago - that fails this simple test). --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 UEFA Women's Champions League

 * Comment At the women's level only FIFA Women's World Cup is posted per ITNR. Brandmeistertalk  08:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is being proposed as an ITNR listing. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Franz Wright

 * Comment: Wish his article had more about his actual works. There's a background section that would supposedly lead up to something like that, and there's a criticism section, which would supposedly derive from a section summarizing what he actually did.  Spencer T♦ C 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Pulitzer Price is a national price of one country with 21 recipients each year. Guggenheim Fellowship? Over 200 people each year. Whiting Fellowship? Some organisation giving prices to 10 people each year. Getting a government grant is also not really exciting - when you need a one-time $25,000 grant chances are your writings are not selling well at that point. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with HiLo, these awards are for the large part a self-congratulatory club, not enough on their own to merit posting. The family dynasty angle is novel, though. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Similar grounds to LoveToLondon, in that the Pultizer alone is not sufficient for RD as compared to, say, the Nobel. And beyond that, I'm just not seeing a massive amount of recognition to include. --M ASEM (t) 21:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Poor article and murky notability. The bit about the father-son Pulitzer duo might make a good DYK blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack

 * Weak oppose: There have been lots of these sort of attacks in Afghanistan over the past many years, but this one does seem to have gotten significant coverage. Still, I don't know if we need to post ITN items for every terrorist attack in the country (that claims the lives of Western foreigners, anyway). -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Casey Jones gets posted accidentally killing 8 in Philly, but a deadlier attack than that on Charlie Hebdo gets ignored? μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Such comparisons with Charlie Hebdo are clearly wrong. Just by the number of deaths, Charlie Hebdo would be a normal event that happens every day in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support This is a more deadlier attack than normal in the region, but an issue is when the article starts on saying this is an annual "action" that the Taliban does, it seems to diminish the severity of the problem. --M ASEM (t) 05:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, can you explain that Masem? I find it hard to understand how a yearly massacre is less notable than a lone wolf attack. μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an indication this is an area rife with violent attacks, and concerned a "norm". As LTL points out below this is only slightly higher than the normal death toll daily in that country from similar attacks, this only stands out as there were foreign nationals involved. --M ASEM (t) 14:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nearly 10 people die in terror attacks in Afghanistan every day, so 14 people dead is a normal day in Afghanistan. The only reason why the media picked it up was that Western foreigners died, and even that is so common in Afghanistan that it wasn't big frontpage news. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose another dark day but a common one. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Medeis, particularly her reply to Masem. Neljack (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Terrorist attack in an area where terrorist attacks are common. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Dark globular clusters

 * Oppose Every area of science has new discoveries all the time. I am not seeing any information that this new discovery is actually confirmed to be very significant. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, reluctantly. The linked article is a stub that might more profitably be merged/redirected into globular star cluster at this stage.  The references given speak of astronomers scratching their heads and saying 'wonder what's up with that?'  An interesting discovery, but not really a news story at this stage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not seeing the broader significance of this one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the significance of this is obvious, as regular globular clusters play a huge role in our current understanding of galaxy formation. But the article needs significant expanding. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How will we ever know when it's expanded enough! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality science communication is hard and lay people often don't understand new discoveries - the article needs to be written in plain enough language that people who don't have science degrees can follow why this discovery is new, and how it changes astrophysics, needs far more background for lay readers to understand how this fits into other topics. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm among those lay people without science degree and still I understand every sentence I wrote :) I also think the blurb is as simple as it can be, but any further edits are welcome. Brandmeistertalk  09:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Danaher to buy Pall for US$13.8B and split into two companies

 * Weak support: It's a lot of money, although as the nominator notes, these aren't household names. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Danaher article needs major improvement. It looks like a list without any bullet points with respect to the prose in the article.  Spencer T♦ C 07:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; not really well known businesses. Article on Danaher Corporation contains swatches of spammy intentional vagueness and solution-speak: global active company, provides control and measurement instrumentation solutions and services,  offers system solutions in the areas of Life Science.  The text in Pall Corporation, providing solutions to hydraulic operations needed to bore through the channel bedrock, might actually be about a chemical solution but I doubt it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. I'd be willing to see this posted if the two articles weren't awful.  They are.  Need a complete rewrite to turn them into anything worthwhile for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fair assessment. I intend to improve the articles, but didn't have a chance to do so yesterday (wasn't feeling well in the evening).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose regardless of its monetary value, I don't know who both companies are. Donnie Park (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but decisions based purely on your own ignorance are summarily ignored here. It's nice you want to say something, but save yourself the time, because any admin that judges this decision will completely ignore any vote with a rationale based solely on what you don't know.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When I saw this blurb, to me it was like "so what" because companies buy each other every day and these two are not common household brands, compare this to the Microsoft-Nokia takeover or recently the AOL-Verizon takeover and yo could see why they were listed. Donnie Park (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Vatican to recognize Palestine as a state

 * Oppose as undue. There has been a general trend toward acceptance of Palestinian statehood, especially in Europe, and I don't think we need to post every time an individual country (let alone a country that isn't even a UN member state) adds its name to the list. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have an opinion on whether this should be posted but I feel I should point out that we did not post Sweden's recognition of Palestine when I nominated it last October.  Everymorning   talk  18:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kudzu1, frankly "so what"? The age of consent in the Vatican was 12 until a year or so back, for me there are some clear issues with the real world here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The Vatican is not only an (actually pretty small) country, but a church with over a billion members taking sides in this issue is big news. Keep in mind that for people like John Roberts (or any other member of the Catholic two-thirds majority in the US Supreme Court), John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Boehner the pope is the highest religious authority. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who gives a flying poop what those individuals think? This is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest.  I suspect you're being ironic, you must be!!!! (that you included Jeb Bush must mean that we, none of us, can surely take you seriously!!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, Jeb Bush is a main contender for becoming the next president of the United States. Different from what you claim, it does matter a lot in the Middle East what the current Vice President of the United States or the current Secretary of State of the United States or the current Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives (who has invited the pope to speak to a Joint session of the United States Congress later this year) think. I'm pretty certain for these people the opinion of the leader of their faith is more important than the opinion of Sweden (which is just one of over 100 countries and not even the first EU country to recognize Palestine). One example where it matters what those individuals think is that full membership in the United Nations is mainly blocked by the threat of a US veto. Another example are the several hundred million Dollar of US taxpayer money the United States congress gives to Israel each year in military aid. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a known fact that the US and Israel are buddy-buddy in an attempt to suppress the existence of Palestine. That's why I believe the endorsement of half of Christianity is very meaningful; those two countries will likely never acknowledge Palestine's existence. On the same front, what does Sweden mean, if anything? It's the equivalent of Japan recognizing Palestine! It matters, but not on the same level. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And Palestine wants to suppress the existence of Israel. So what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Palestine wants two countries in the borders of 1967. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The appeal to authority fallacy above notwithstanding, the Vatican City is a small micronation that speaks for itself in this case, not 1 billion Christians. If we haven't posted the recognition of bigger nations, I don't see the need here. Resolute 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not Vatican City which I would agree is trivial in the larger picture. This instead is the Vatican as defined by the Holy See, the ones that are the leaders of the Catholic Church around the world. --M ASEM (t) 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? The Vatican as a state can sign treaties, but I don't think the Vatican as a diocese can. Formerip (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The AP says this is the Holy See. (I do recognize that sometimes the nation vs the Catholic organization can be tricky so this is a fair question to ask. If it was just the city, yeah, I'd not consider it news). --M ASEM (t) 22:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it might be a distinction without a difference in this context. Formerip (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Normally I would oppose this kind of nom, but the Vatican is different. This amounts to de-facto recognition by the Roman Catholic Church. And the Pope, for good or ill, is one of the most influential people in the world. This is clearly ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I'm still alive to read this response, it's the best I've ever seen. Thank you Ad Orientem for making my life complete.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Not sure whether it matters or not that we didn't post Sweden. Of course, we don't need to post every time a country does this. But the Vatican is a bit more directly involved, because a non-negligible minority of Palestinians are Roman Catholics and because of the religious dimension to the conflict, which it might be argued makes it a minor stakeholder with regards to the final status of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Formerip (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment regardless of the lack of notability of this item, it's worth just noting that the article linked has two sentences describing this, with the Vatican "shifting recognition from the PLO to the State of Palestine", hardly what is claimed in the blurb. Any kind of treaty isn't even noted in this article, not suggesting that the supporters haven't even cast a casual glance at the target article we're suggesting should be posted to the main page of the fourth most visited website in the known universe......  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we certain that no alien planets have internets? Regardless, I support on the merit of the story, not the condition of the article. Regardless of what others feel, I believe putting these up with a few issues here or there (as long as they aren't BLP type concerns or total hogwash) allows our vibrant community of registered and unregistered users to make their mark. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added an altblurb with a target article that I think makes more sense than state of Palestine. Everymorning   talk  20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No mention in your alt target of this item. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a state of crooks recognizes a state of terrorists. but still a recognition.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly, based on the fact that the articles suggested do not substantiate any such claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously... But I'm sure we could find a large segment of the population agrees with this. That said, still ITN-worthy. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support we can't really underestimate the diplomatic "power" that the Vatican has, considering the US-Cuba relations thawing. Plus, very, very few Weatern European countries have actually recognized Palestine. Nergaal (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - this is the catholic church of Christianity recognizing a muslim state that some of the bloodiest battles in history (before the modern era of course) were fought over 600–1000 years ago. I think this is a milestone, regardless of whether the Vatican is a true "political" power, they are certainly the largest religious power in the world. Really, only the US and Israel recognizing Palestine would be bigger than this. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I am in agreement with arguments made regarding the merits of this international story, but also note that the information should be in the target article, whichever is used. A decent paragraph is a good idea. Jus  da  fax   23:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - More significant than some tragic train crash from the US. Because neither the Vatican City nor Palestine is a UN member, at least the Vatican City will establish diplomatic relations with Palestine. How will this affect Vatican's relationships with other sovereign states? --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a small political maneuver that has little, if any, real-world impact. Trade/commerce to and from Palestine won't be affected, nor will it alter the domestic political situation as Israeli soldiers and Hamas don't take their marching orders from the Pope. If the Palestinian NA manages to join the UN as a full member, we can post that. --User:Tocino 03:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Undue as Vatican is an observer state in United Nations General Assembly and it has no voting power. --Ant a n O 06:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bilateral relationship has nothing to do with the UN. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * More than 100 bigger countries already recognize Palestine, not much news here. The Vatican is also leading a church with over a billion members - that is the interesting part. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. As can be seen by the frantic oppose votes, this is a big deal. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So big a deal it isn't even on the BBC News homepage? While Burundi and Amtrak and Nepal are? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to add 5 exclamation points!!!!! Abductive  (reasoning) 11:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't believe the hype. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . Big meh to the blather. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support – I updated the article Wednesday & thought about nominating it, but upon reflection I'm not sure how much difference this makes. OTOH, the Vatican is not just some small country – it influences and in a sense speaks for millions worldwide. (Its recognition seems more significant than that by Sweden, which was predictable.) Sca (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I strongly disagree with the oppose !votes and find some of the commentary disturbing, it's pretty clear that there is no consensus to post this. As there is no reason to believe consensus will be achieved I suggest someone close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Consensus may well form and there is no reason to cut off discussion at this point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * True. Supports are in the lead at the moment. Sca (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I agree that this is an established trend, where countries change their mind on whether or not to recognize Palestine. Continuing a trend does not rise to the level of ITN, thus why we did not post about Sweden last year. I also agree that there is some merit in arguments that there is more interest/influence in Vatican affairs, and perhaps even some shock factor in that a Christian state has recognized a largely Muslim area against the wishes of Israel. I do not, however, think those counter-arguments are enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A branch of Christianity that has little actual status in alot of western culture does something that other countries did a long time ago. Cool. More importantly I can't find it on the BBC homepage or the CNN homepage, thus it isn't really In The News at all. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Resolute. This is not a religious matter, and is of no consequence to followers, it is a political decision by microstate with very few armed divisions. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple question, and I find this question genuinely disturbing, .... where is this adequately covered in the article(s) you're all so keen to support? Or perhaps you forgot that we need to actually write something encyclopedic about this news item?  Where is this actually news-breaking?  Sure, it's on page 7 or something, but so is Big Brother.  I think a lot of people have allowed their religious beliefs get in the way here, of course that's my personal opinion.  Also, it is interesting, at least to me, that most of the supporters make no mainspace edits at all, and just support by default.  Troubling.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of minimal relevance, therefore WP:UNDUE. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not RC, but I wouldn't be so quick to brashly dismiss the Vatican / papacy as insignificant.
 * Anyway, it's fast becoming third-cycle news – suggest close. Yawn. Sca (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought closures and re-openings were supposed to be done by admins. Sca (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, deletions, blocks, protections, editing through protected templates, etc. are done by admins. Admins have no other powers available to them exclusively.  If you can actually technically do it, you're as allowed to do it as any admin would be, pursuant to the basic rules of consensus and edit warring and things like that.  But admins do not have special privileges excepting where their tools give them actual things they can do that non-admins cannot.  Any editor in good standing is allowed to assess consensus and make a decision. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks. Sca (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Non-Admin closures are allowed in many areas provided that it's not obviously controversial. However if it's an NAC then pretty much anyone who doesn't agree can reopen it. In those situations it's best to wait for an Admin to close. FWIW IMO there is no reason for this discussion to still be open. There is not a snowball's chance in the hot stinky bad place of this gaining consensus to post. I don't like that, but there it is. Some people just aren't good at dropping sticks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd that the same (unregistered) user who closed it reopened it. Sca (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was an admin closure and should be restored really but oh well no harm in it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh – Oops! Sca (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Abu Ala al-Afri

 * Wait Death is not confirmed (it is what the Iraqi defense minister is stating). --M ASEM (t) 17:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait: The last time the Iraqi government said an ISIL leader was dead, it turned out he wasn't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Close we'll never get independent verification of this death to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia in time for this to stop going stale. The best we can do is say that it was reported that he's been killed by the Iraqi government, and that's usually woefully inadequate for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The US military is stating that the claimed air strike that caused this death never happened . --M ASEM (t) 19:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Burundi coup attempt

 * Wait until it is confirmed. While the general has announced he's overthrown the president, NYT and other sources are saying a coup may be in progress. Wait until it is affirmed that this actually happened. --M ASEM (t) 13:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait No indication that the coup was successful or is over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait there should be an article on Godefroid Niyombare - he was demoted in Feb, wait to see what the president does. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment story progressing - The president's plane has been prevented from landing and returned to Tanzania. Looks like this is descending into civil unrest as supporters of the General and supporters of the President are starting to fight. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment sources updated - this is now degenerating to a series of gun battles between the police and factions of the military over key sites in the capital - including the airport and radio broadcasters. Two radio stations were set alight overnight, and the most popular radio station in the country has been burnt down. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the article should be called an "uprising".120.62.18.205 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait and post if confirmed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hyon Yong-chol executed

 * Comment The article says he was executed around 30 April, so I'm adding alt blurb. Brandmeistertalk  09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Elephant in the room here... how does one execute somebody with anti-aircraft fire? Put them in a plane and then shoot it down? Use something like this on them directly? An AA missile? I think that should be clarified before this can be posted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Army Artillery pointing towards BDR headquarters.jpg
 * Not really an elephant in the room at all. The BBC article contains a link to a detailed description of what is believed to have happened.  A number of ZPU-4's were installed and allagedly used to execute this chap and a few others, in front of some invited guests. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this separately; it's apparently not the first time NK's done this. I still believe the article should be a bit more explicit about what exactly "execution by AA fire" is (the version I checked doesn't). My first assumption was correct, but I dismissed it with a "would someone really do that? Awfully risky". Such acts might be hard to contextualize for readers who haven't followed NK execution practices. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What's the more important fact? The way he was executed? Or the fact that he was executed? It does seem like Kim sits around thinking of nifty ways to dispatch his perceived enemies, but that's a topic unto itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - Subject appears to have been in a very prominent position in the NK government. I'd like to see a bit more discussion of his death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - "disloyalty and treason" sounds quite serious, doesn't it. BBC radio news is saying that he was executed for "falling asleep during an official function." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There was no execution and we definitely did not shoot this plump breasted pigeon. You Western pig-dogs!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you actually admit someone fell asleep?! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until NK or a third party confirms this. The reports listed all cite SK and say it has not been verified. Even the BBC report has quotes around 'execution'. Fuebaey (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 conditional upon some sort of confirmation by a second source (beyond SK intelligence). -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Fuebaey's reasoning, if this is going to be highly visible we should confirm all of the facts first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait – This macabre political stunt ("Death by flak?") shouldn't be listed unless there's independent confirmation, either officially (so to speak) or from multiple mainstream media. Sca (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest this is closed. There will not be independent confirmation, nor will the NK hierarchy admit to this kind of behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, NK routinely publicizes the executions of high ranking officials. They did so when the current grand great glorious imperial and infallible leader of the proletariat dispatched his uncle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, please show me the evidence of both your claim and this claim, directly from an NK source. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made no claim that the current execution has been reported, only that such events have been confirmed by the NK media in the past. See... North Korea says leader's uncle was executed -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you used CNN to substantiate your first claim, i.e. not North Korean news agencies, and have nothing for this claim. Closing time approaches.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're implying that a North Korean source would be regarded as WP:RS? I'm surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm answering the questions of those saying that other reliable sources, such as those from South Korea aren't reliable enough. What do you suggest?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to suggest there's no consensus to post anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite so, as I suggested, we won't get consensus because we can't please all the people all the time. At least most of us haven't been shot to death by anti-aircraft artillery, although my guts are shot from a dubious dopiaza, if that helps.....  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that always helps. You need a little calming digestif. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Revised comment – Well, it's on BBC, NYT & Reuters now – good nuff? Sca (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned above, all three of those include the "according to South Korean intelligence", who can hardly be considered a neutral party. Mogism (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose live by the sword, die by the anti-aircraft missile. Unless we go for the dark humor angle, the only notability here is Kim's morbidly fascinating penchant for overkill. I am reminded of Orson Welles' shark speech in The Lady from Shanghai. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a missile – it was (reportedly) an ensemble of four 14.5mm (.57 cal.) machine guns – still more than enough to have rendered Gen. Hyon senseless (perhaps formless) in a few seconds. Sca (talk)


 * Oppose. From the AFP report: "The NIS has a patchy record with its intelligence reports on North Korea, which have sometimes missed key events or reported others later revealed to be false." We need, at least, to wait for independent corroboration. Formerip (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If they got the execution of the man in charge of Defense in North Korea wrong, I don't think they would last too long. Are they that bad? (genuine question) 331dot (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: For one, the source is somewhat dubious and has gotten news like this very wrong in the past. For another, if what the South Korean intelligence agency says is accurate, these gruesome executions are actually pretty common in North Korea. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I nominated this less because of the execution method(though that is part of it) and more the fact that this man is/was a top government official. If a US President had his Secretary of Defense executed, it would be posted to ITN in seconds. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose What is actually so exciting or important about this news (if it is actually true, which is not confirmed)? Shooting by an anti-aircraft gun sounds more human than the fate of the 50 people who have been publicly beheaded this year so far by US buddy Saudi Arabia. And based on the neutral tone that is also used at ITN for actions of US-supported dictators, the wording would have to be something like North Korean Minister of People's Armed Forces Hyon Yong-chol was sentenced to death for treason and executed. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yawn. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What's different about it? Apparently it was a piece of gruesome theater (perhaps reminiscent of the August 1944 executions at Plötzensee Prison that were filmed for instructive viewing later by a select audience). Sca (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At least what you had to say was relevant Sca. The continual conspiracy theory expounded by our "new" friend LoveToLondon (who has only 223 edits to his name yet has an definite understanding of ITN, Wikipedia policies and guidelines etc) is becoming tiresome, and actually irrelevant in many cases.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Karachi bus shooting

 * Support upon update. Notable event given casualties. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support  — per news of massive loss of life. --Saqib (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Significant death toll.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Per previous – plus potential to spawn more violence. Sca (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a notable mass shooting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support massive death toll. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and article is in good shape for posting. Is it possible (I don't know, just asking) to include this might have been a secular sectarian targeted killing in the blurb? It might be too early to presume that, but I feel there's something missing from the blurb to suggest the nature of the shootings. --M ASEM (t) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean secular, or sectarian? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Latter, yes, and fixed. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want an altblurb? Sectarian killing not confirmed, but suspected by many based on the dead (though not all were Shia). -- Aronzak (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only asking if there's consensus if we can add more. If its not confirmed, we shouldn't add it obviously, but I feel that if we can give just a bit more context to the blurb to say the who or what that is confirmed to be involved, we should. --M ASEM (t) 14:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All were Shia and now ISIS claimed the responsibly as well. --175.110.102.249 (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe almost all were specifically Ismaili. But that doesn't literally confirm the motive, it just makes it look likely. ISIS have claimed responsibility for things that were nothing to do with them in the past, in order to spread their notoreity. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If they were primarily Ismaili, that would help (and a confirmed fact), without necessarily stating the intent/reason behind it. --M ASEM (t) 15:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support sectarian/communal violence is an issue in the region, and this is a particularly bad example.-- Aronzak (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: William MacDonald (serial killer)

 * Weak weak oppose on importance, and that article needs a lot of work in sourcing to get it to ITN standards. Notorious people are not disqualified from ITN RD but they should have a more broader reputation that makes their name recognizable (eg someone akin to Charles Manson) While Australia's first serial killer, I'm not sure if this is notorious enough. --M ASEM (t) 14:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article has sensationalised language and reads more like it reflects true crime enthusiast language rather than academic criminology. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Five victims is pretty run of the mill for serial killers and there are just too many to be taking ITN/RD notice of all of them with such a low body count. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above, the article needs work and we aren't talking about a Jack the Ripper kind of person here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with significant article improvements: Notability is clear, but the article is not written in any sort of encyclopedic tone and is very thinly sourced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, weak support on notability. The article sucks and is pure crime drama, but the individual has been behind bars for something like 52 years.  Truly notable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Serial killing by nation is not a "field". Abductive  (reasoning) 10:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Putin.Voina

 * Support - as author. --Nickispeaki (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Both the nomination and the article are unclear about the content and significance of this research, and the article is a stub. (No opposition to a more susbtantial article on a similar topic; I just don't think we can use this one as it stands.) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If this is just the presentation of findings to a court or other official body, we don't post that, but instead any government/judicial action that results from that. --M ASEM (t) 13:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a report from an opposition figure, and thus perhaps a challenge to the fairly strongly pushed official narrative regarding Russian actions in Ukraine. But that needs to be more explicit, and we need to know more about the significance of repercussions. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes! It's political bomb like WikiLeaks. Just Russian WikiLeaks about War in Donbass.--Nickispeaki (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article really needs massive work. Things to include: better English (at present the article says the work was 'carried by Nemtsov...in Ukrainian' - presumably it was carried out by him in Ukraine); details of the findings; reactions from official sources and the media; a translation of the title. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even taking into account of calling the "Russian Wikileaks", I'm still not seeing this as an actionable news item - people that are critical of Putin and the current Russian government put out a book in the wake of the death of Boris Nemtsov (including some of his research). It is a political bombshell, and--- ? It is noted that this was a highly anticipated report, so I doubt it was a surprise that they made some of the claims they have. Basically, this has potential for a larger story, but I'm still just not seeing this as a major ITN time yet. --M ASEM  (t) 14:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In case it's not obvious, the name of the article is Russian for "Putin.War". I am sympathetic, and would support this for DYK, but the release of evidence of something everyone has known from day one is not really news.  It would have been like us posting Dinesh D'Souza's anti-Obama documentary; perhaps true, but neither neutral nor news. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. Just isn't ITN-caliber news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above opposes. The article quality is very low, and the topic is gaining little if any traction. Suggest we close this one. Jus  da  fax   23:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Philadelphia train derailment

 * Support - Bad derailment along the busiest passenger rail line in the United States that has produced a few fatalities and a number of injuries and has garnered significant media attention.  Dough   4872   11:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Even with a relatively low casualty count, this is a highly unusual traffic accident on a heavily regulated national transportation system widely considered to be among the safest in the U.S.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Such a minor transportation related accident in another country would be unlikely to gain ITN attention. This is a mostly American story and seems to be benefiting from the frequent bias towards US related news items. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM is usually one working to combat U.S. systemic bias on ITN, and even he nominated this story.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as noted in the nomination comment, this is unusual. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I have been following the story, this isn't an ordinary derailment as one car was nearly split in two. There have also been a number of higher officials here in the United States who have given statements and/or are involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pretty unusual event for the United States. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above, as well as the fact that this accident will probably disrupt traffic on the most important rail line in the US for a significant period of time. CogitoErgoSum14 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - The concerns of Ad Orientem are fair - if this was a similar accident (in # of deaths/injured) in a different country like India, it might not get anywhere close to the same coverage, and the fact it happened in the States may be swinging the news. That said, this is unusual in the states or by Amtrak and is of the normal ilk of large scale transportation accidents we often include. --M ASEM (t) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - An uncommon occurrence on a major rail carrier. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose in the large scheme, a minor transportation accident. (BTW, I ride that exact route regularly.)  No notable victims.  Unless rumors this was caused by sabotage pan out (a SEPTA train's engineering cabin on the same route was apparently shot at 20 minutes before, shattering its windshield) it is just local news about a busily travelled corridor. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should also consider the service disruption and political impact this is having. . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of the severity of the disruption, which also comes with storms and fires; I use this route between Boston and Washington all the time. But now they are reporting that the train was going 100mph on a curve rated for 50mph, and that a crash had occurred at the same spot killing 79 people in the 1940's.  I'll change to weak support if the authorities announce they are investigating likely (willful) criminal activity or sabotage.  Otherwise it is simply a sensationalized event due to its location. μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support: Not a high death toll, but an unusual type of accident in the United States. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is well put together and the story itself is very much in the news. Calidum T&#124;C 20:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Any train accident is in the media in the country where it happens and causes disruptions in the traffic there. It's not even the deadliest train accident at the location where it happened, and a pretty minor incident from a global point of view. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh?--WaltCip (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Ad Orientem. Sca (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support to counter the excessive American bias-countering. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. I don't see why an accident becomes more significant just because such incidents are rare in the US. As far as I'm concerned, a train accident killing seven people in India would be just as significant, but it certainly wouldn't be posted. Neljack (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Yes, there have been tragic deaths from this accident. However, as unusual it may be, this is nothing new. If there is an accident at the super-duper train or a hovertrain, I'd be all for it. I've unmarked "Ready" from the heading. Perhaps this qualifies for DYK. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's still the lead story on the BBC, Obama has reacted to it, and it occurred in the "busiest passenger rail corridor in North America".  Everymorning   talk  03:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In BBC English, it might... Well, I'm in US, so the BBC must have adjusted front news page for different regions. I checked BBC Russian and BBC Ukrainian, and the story is not featured in these editions. It's neither as well featured in BBC Arabic nor BBC Persian. At least BBC Chinese does but puts the story in the middle of the page rather than top. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Article is extensive, well-sourced, and of good-quality. I don't live in North America, and yet, this was the first story on the news last night. --Tocino 03:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update Needed There are a total of eight (8) dead and all are accounted for. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated by TRM. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peter Gay

 * Weak support on notability, but oppose on article quality. Several unreferenced paragraphs that will need to either be removed or cited. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support same reasons as Kudzu1. Only 4 refs actually on bio (rest all to support bibliography), leaves several unreferenced statements in his bio sections. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as near top of the field as a historian. Article is much better than before. It is already of sufficient quality to post, but improvement could be made in citing awards and formatting references. Mamyles (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it lacks sourcing of many statements particularly subjective ones, such as "Gay's 1968 book, Weimar Culture was a ground-breaking cultural history of the Weimar Republic." It's nowhere near ready to post. --M ASEM  (t) 02:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better than what? It is almost entirely unreferenced outside the bibliography, which is the least important section to reference. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points. I was focusing too much on the IP's large edits to the last sections. Scholarship and Awards sections need referencing and the language Masem points out is also a concern, one that would likely be remedied by using non-primary references. I've striked my "already" and will now go hunt for sources... Mamyles (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support conditional on article improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that should be the last of the sourcing issues taken care of now. I'd say the article is in fine fettle for RD posting purposes, although it would be nice if there were a permissible photograph of the man on the page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. Getting one of the over 200 annual Guggenheim fellowships is not a huge achievement and getting a price from the Netherlands (Heineken Price) does also not suffice for ITN. Other nominator claims like writer of important Sigmund Freud biography are also questionable when looking at the sources. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He's been called a "major" or "the country's pre-eminent" cultural historian by several sources quoted in the article. That in itself would seem enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support for Sigmund Freud bio and for confirming the man killed himself. I think that is important. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which man was that who killed himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Martinevans123. Freud committed suicide. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you urgently need to direct your attention to the Sigmund Freud article, which certainly says no such thing? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC) And likewise, possibly, Peter Gay's own article?
 * No. I don't have the source material necessary. Freud's article is clear already that he had an assisted suicide. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we'd have to disagree there, since the word "suicide" does not appear. Certainly Freud had already agreed with Schur, as to what Schur should do when the time came. But if you think this is one of the most significant aspects of Gay's contribution to the understanding of Freud, I'm surprised you don't think it should be made clearer in the article(s)- at least from the point of view of Gay's contribution. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ihcoyc and Kudzu1 have done a great job on this article! It's ready to go methinks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Article is in much better shape from my original !vote, and should be ready to post. --M ASEM (t) 23:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready as there appears to be consensus (only one person in opposition) to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ananta Bijoy Das killed

 * Oppose quality not good. And not sure if this specific incident (although it's the third of its type) is individually notable enough for an ITN blurb.  The overall idea is worth consideration.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose There is clearly a problem here that started with Avijit Roy, no question, but for ITN, such a slow type of story affecting singular individuals is really not the type of thing we post as they happen, and its not really good for a ongoing. --M ASEM (t) 21:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support We'd certainly be posting the assassinations of Western writers and journalists. The notion that this is somehow to be expected by Pakistanis is racist, and the notion that they are not all dying at once is not relevant; they are all dying for a specific reason that's one of the pillars of Wikipedia, even if none dare name it. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Atheism is not a pillar of Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Freedom of expression, and the freedom to spread knowledge, however, are the basis of the project. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, if a non-notable American blogger was killed (even in a hate crime), it almost certainly be dismissed as "routine gun violence" or some such. To be clear, I am not opposing the nomination, but I contest the assertion that nationality is holding this back.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A slow progression of murdered atheist bloggers, while tragic, is not ITN material unless the individuals themselves are especially notable. If a major legislative or protectionist change happens in the country then that maybe a suitable hook. Stephen 01:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, are you suggesting this should be an ongoing nom? Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, Charlie Hebdo, Pamela Gellar, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard, yatta, yatta, yatta? I could support that. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: If Das doesn't have an article (like Roy did), it's much harder to consider this nomination since it's more difficult to see how significant Das was.  Spencer T♦ C 05:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The victim does not appear to be notable and this is not a mass killing. People are being murdered on a near daily basis in that part of the world for their religious (and occasionally non-religious) beliefs. It is sad, but given the broader context and circumstances, this crime appears almost run of the mill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem, another religious killing sadly these happen all over the world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Verizon purchases AOL

 * Support when updated. Major business deal between well-known companies.  As a minor point, the blurb should be "agrees to purchase" instead of "purchases" since the deal won't be final for some time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article updates Significant deal. Thaddeus' note on the blurb is correct (though it does look like both sides have agreed, so the only barrier is any FTC/FCC blockage). --M ASEM (t) 14:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Companies are both household names, and it's a significant business deal. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – per previous. Sca (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support major business deal. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It isn't even close to the largest merger announced year-to-date (Mylan/Perrigo $29B, Nokia/Alcatel $16B, Pfizer/Hospira $15B, Charter/Bright House $10B, Staples/Office Depot $6B, Shire/NPS $5B).  In 2014, you couldn't crack the top ten acquisitions for less than about $20B.  I suspect we are here primarily because Verizon and AOL are well-known tech brands to Americans.  That said, I'll call this a weak oppose because we do tend to have a deficit of business news.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Notability for a significant proportion of English-speaking readers. Sca (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I have done some expansion with the time and sources I had, looks a bit better now. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait Remember Comcast and Time Warner? Both providers have competing email services, and the deal also comes with HuffPo, so regulators are going to have their say first. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a note, it appears AOL is trying to spin off HuffPo as to not make it part of the deal. --M ASEM (t) 17:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful and relevant, but it still signals that the proper stance is wait. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * AOL (the bolded article) has been cleaned-up and should be fit for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Medeis. In the U.S., not all proposed mergers actually succeed.--WaltCip (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only time they receive attention is on announcement and in the rare instance it fails. The completion date is mostly a formality that goes unnoticed and there is no indication that regulators will question this one in the slightest.  All recent mergers posted on ITN were on announcement date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not Ready. The story is that Verizon has expressed interest in acquiring AOL.  HuffPo's not been spun off.  The FCC and the FTC among others have not approved the deal.  In fact there is no concrete deal yet, it's a trial ballon and recent comments above show this is clear.  I will vote to support this when it actually goes through.  Not now, as it is no different at this point from the failed proposal, nominated for ITN, to list the merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable which never went beyond the trial water stage. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Consensus is clearly against you on this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're mistaking early supports based on name recognition for reasoned consensus, but far be it from me to tell an admin not to put his thumb on the scale. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. It seems you may have found a successful strategy to keep all business deals off ITN - as you well know the story won't be in the news later, so you can easily oppose it in then in unlikely event it gets renominated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait I agree with Medeis that we should wait until the deal receives regulatory approval. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up before - the problem is that business deals are "in the news" when they are affirmed by both parties. The government regulatory stuff is known to potentially block things, and when they are blocked, those actions are in the news, but they are very few and far between. If the regulation allows the buyout, that will only have a small pinging in the news cycle, so it would fail ITN then. Hence that here, as long as the deal is affirmed by both parties, this is the proper ITN point. --M ASEM (t) 05:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is ZERO indication this deal will be scrutinized. This was an invention of Medeis, not something any RS is saying.  (When a deal is actually likely to be scrutinized, RS report that.)  Previous ITN postings of business deals have been on the announcement.  The closing of the deal won't be in the news.  A "wait" vote might as well be an oppose.  There is very little chance that this will be renominated when the deal closes because it won't make the news.  I'm sure Medeis knows that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When the subject of timing was last discussed in October 2014, there was unanimous consensus to post at the time of announcement. Regulatory approval does not normally make the news, because it is a mere formality 99% of the time. Every business deal posted in at least the last year has been at the time of the announcement.  There is no indication this deal will face any special scrutiny in any cited reliable sources.  So,  why should this case be treated differently than previous consensus?  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The announced but aborted Comcast-Time Warner cable merger. I thought that was quite clear and obvious.  All's I can say is, that while I often oppose business postings, I will support this merger when and only if it is actually consummated. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Time Warner-Comcast deal was questioned by RS from the start who said it might fail because both are major players in the Cable Television business. There is no comparable questioning here and no real reason to think it will face regulatory scrutiny.  It was also hardly the first merger ever to fail - when previous consensus to post at announcement was formed, people already knew there was a small possibility of any given deal failing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP is not a source and whether or not an extremely small cohort of WP editors is actually paying attention to something, understands something, or has the relevant knowledge about something is a dubious basis on which to make an argument. Having been one of the early opposes on that posting I feel that adds weight to my point, rather than detracting any.  Given this item is not big in the news, I am not sure what waiting till it's finalized could possibly do. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about Wikipedia editors questioning the TW-Comcast deal. I was talking about actual reliable sources.  The same sources that do not back the idea that the AOL deal will be questioned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I am sorry, I missed that you said RS (I read and my brain ignored it) and it was stupid of me. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There appears to be consensus on notability. The only point of debate is on timing.  I request an admin (?) take a look at this and decide whether there is consensus to post or consensus to wait.   If the decision is to wait, then sobeit, but it would be a real shame if it isn't posted at all just because timing couldn't be agreed on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ People had the same complaints about the Nokia nomination, but that was posted because as you say, most go through and the news is when they are announced. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. Consensus, although not unanimous, is in favor of posting this item at this point in time. Although those supporting a delay in posting note that there is regulator approval, there is consensus that the "agreement"/"deal" being announced is the notable news item being posted. Article update meets ITN standards. While each case should be judged on individual merits, the post now/later for business dealings with regulator approval perhaps is something that should be discussed on WT:ITN to guide future nominations.  Spencer T♦ C 07:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. To me, and probably thousands of other readers, this blurb is almost completely meaningless.  Who or what is Verizon?  Who or what is AOL?  Seriously, many of us non-US non-geeks have very little clue.  An improvement would be something like "...the media company AOL...".    Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, I tweaked the blurb accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Nepal earthquake

 * Support when further details come in. More buildings are down, current reports of at least five dead and at least 12 injured - the death toll could rise in the coming hours and this is a further tragedy for a country still struggling to recover bodies. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this not already on Ongoing? It is unlikely to top the original tremor and two highlighted links to the same article looks a bit excessive on the Main Page. Fuebaey (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is only one of the many ongoing (and expected) aftershocks - not a new earthquake, not the first deadly aftershock of this earthquake, and the article is already listed as ongoing. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I gather it is actually a seperate quake (and series of aftershocks) rather than part of the same sequence - though with geographical overlap it's probably hard to distinguish, but anyway still a weak oppose while the first main quake is listed under ongoing - that page links through fairly well. EdwardLane (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As the USGS makes clear : "[This] event is the largest aftershock to date of the M 7.8 April 25, 2015 Nepal earthquake – known as the Gorkha earthquake - which was located 150 km to the west, and which ruptured much of the decollément between these two earthquakes." (emphasis mine) Dragons flight (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This should be covered by ongoing, though we may want to keep it up a little longer with this recent event. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pedantic as it may seem, the ongoing tag could be changed to "Nepal earthquakes". The local news was treating it as a separate event, but they might all still go in the same article? Resolute 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should ITN follow local media or reliable scientific sources? This is a normal earthquake with hundreds of aftershocks. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You follow the balance of reliable sources, of course. I brought up local media because that was the first I had heard of it when I got up this morning.  But my local media would have gotten the report from the AP or CP, so... Resolute 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – BBC at 13:30 says 37 killed, 1,000+ injured. May require a new blurb as details emerge. Sca (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment all reliable sources I'm looking at are stating this a second earthquake, not "one of the many ongoing (and expected) aftershocks. Per Sca, we should hold a watching brief and post this when appropriate, combined with moving the Ongoing item into the earthquake blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, opposition based on the idea there would be two links is unfounded - if posted as a blurb, the ongoing link would be removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: AP: 42 killed, 1,117 injured in "another major earthquake." Sca (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The Rambling Man is seems to be very bad at finding reliable sources. BBC: In that context, this second earthquake was almost certainly triggered by the stress changes caused by the first one. Indeed, the US Geological Survey had a forecast for an aftershock in this general area. CBS: Panic as deadly aftershock hits Nepal The Independent: Nepal earthquake: Deadly 7.3 magnitude quake was aftershock to disaster on 25 April LoveToLondon (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the irony that all those sources state that it's an earthquake is lost on LoveToLondon. Either way, it's not that important, what's important is that this is major news, is blurb-worthy, we have a solution for the existing Ongoing link, nothing more to debate other than article quality, which LoveToLondon plays no part in.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support posting new article on the new quake, 2015 Nepal earthquake II, once it is brought up to ITN standards. Sadly, this looks like another major earthquake and (properly) has its own article as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the reliable sources say this is a normal aftershock that had even been predicted by the US Geological Survey. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My use of "sadly" is clearly in reference to the victims of the earthquake. Well done using this language to mock me.  Classy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the despicable mockery, this is hardly a "normal aftershock". It's obvious we can disregard LoveToLondon's position, it's really rather irrelevant to the notability of this distinct news item.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support But let us make sure if it belongs as part of the first quake (which presently has a section on this newest tremor) or a separate geological event, and of course wait for some initial idea of causalities. --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per news of massive loss of life following second earthquake. If we feel a need to merge the articles later, so be it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – (pending details) – Whether it's officially a new quake or an aftershock, the victims are just just as dead or injured. (NYT, using 42 / 1,117 figures, calls it a "powerful new earthquake.") Sca (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - It is an aftershock, but is also a "major earthquake" in its own right (using the earthquake scale definition of "major") and associated with significant additional loss of life. As such, I have no problem featuring a new blurb.  I rather like the approach of the current alt blurb.  My only real concern is that right now the new article either needs more elaboration to differentiate it from the original article, or the whole thing should simply be merged and handled in the original article.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: The "just an aftershock" argument carries little weight when it topped magnitude 7 and caused widespread death and injury. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I ain't no geologist, but USGS seems to call it simply an earthquake. Sca (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you linking to the April 25th page? The May 12th page on this earthquake, unambiguously describes the new earthquake as an aftershock of the April 25th event.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh – big ooops! My mistake. Sca (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support who cares whether it's an aftershock or not? The damage and death toll is significant enough to merit a blurb. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason to be careful is that right now, both earthquake articles have detailed information this quake. It would probably be best for the time being that the first quake article drop most of the details and leave a main link to the second quake article. If at a later date it is considered part of the same quake, then the merge can happen, but for now we shouldn't have two duplicative detailed sections. --M ASEM (t) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point. My argument was that this earthquake is significant enough to be posted regardless of it it is an aftershock. But yeah, I suppose it does matter to the extent that it affects how the information is presented to our readers. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I see that this has already been done since my initial !vote above, so I'm okay with the information separation for the purposes of ITN now. (This should help interested editors that want to add information to know where to put it, since that should be a goal of an ITN posting is to encourage properly placed new contributions from interested readers) --M ASEM (t) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not ready yet - the standalone article doesn't have casuality info. I'm on it, so it shouldn't be long. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, ready now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Separated Nepal, India death sections for clarity.Sca (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Picasso's Les Femmes d'Alger

 * Support when article's empty sections are fixed, and all sections are cited. I was just coming here to nominate this. We also posted the last record holder, and this beats it by 20%. Interesting news of a rarely featured topic (~1 post per year). One section needs some references, but the article is otherwise of good quality. Mamyles (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative support. This seems like a reasonable hook to justify an art story, especially given that art is only rarely featured on ITN.  However, the article is brand new and needs some cleanup and ideally some more expansion before being ready.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There's large block quote used both here and at Villa La Californie (Damian Elwes) which is unsourced and my google-fu is not helping (it probably doesn't help its from April 1964); besides some smaller sourcing issues this is a big one to help it out. --M ASEM (t) 00:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As creator, I wish that brilliant block quote was properly sourced. Nearly all of the Elwes pages have severe SPA/COI issues etc. Myself and others are working on weeding out the location and descriptions of the remaining versions. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. List of most expensive paintings shows this as the fourth most expensive painting; a record we wouldn't normally feature.  Is the fact that it is sold at auction just being used as trivia to place this at number one within that subset of sales? The article needs a lot of work too; the unsourced quote is the least of its problems. Stephen 00:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the nature of selling via private sellers, and at auction, and to note this more than doubles the price of the previous highest-auction piece. It's also very rare to get fine + contemporary art up at ITN.  I fully agree on the article, and praise Kegg's efforts to work it into better shape. As a note to Kegg if this ITN fails, please consider a DYK nomination for this fact. --M ASEM  (t) 01:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This same record (highest selling painting at auction) was featured in November, 2013 at $142 million. And May, 2012 at $120 million. This record of $179 million is a significant increase above those. While precedent isn't everything here, those both were posted unanimously. Private painting sales are not a particularly good representation of worth, because of the secrecy behind the deals and that the price may be for more than just the artwork. For example, the highest grossing painting ever (which was also posted) has its price in reliable sources as "said to sell at", as it is secret. Mamyles (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: I don't think this news is terribly jazzy, but as Mamyles diligently noted, there's precedent for posting this kind of trivia at ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - hopefully someone can expanded the versions section so that this has a chance to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the empty sections and the expand tag. Content for some versions is hard to find, which indicates a lack of notability. The "Origins" section is still unsourced. Mamyles (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As you note, the origins section will need referenced before we can post, but I agree the versions section is probably fine as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support and mark ready. Fourteen sources and a rather lazy section tag.  This should go up ASAP unless we have specific line tags. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] American Idol cancelled

 * Strong oppose A popular TV show ends. Not ITN worthy. --M ASEM (t) 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Masem.  Maybe if a show ended with a massive viewership record such as with M*A*S*H back in the day, but popular shows or those with long histories are ended ever year as a matter of routine. Resolute 15:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Long-running and often imitated, and worth a nomination, but this essentially boils down to "show canceled when it fails to remain profitable." In other words, business as usual. Big entertainment news perhaps, but not big news news. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I'm in agreement with the already stated reasons. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Change Ongoing from Yemeni Civil War (2015)
I propose that we change the ongoing blurb target from Yemeni Civil War (2015) to Saudi-led intervention in Yemen (2015–present). This is because that seems to be what is getting the bulk of news coverage with respect to this story, e.g.    Everymorning   talk  01:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support change of link The Saudi-led intervention article seems to be much more actively updated. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kenan Evren

 * Support: Former head of state. - Phill24th (talk) . 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 00:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A former head of state who got there through a coup; clearly impacted Turkey's history. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements Several paragraphs without a citation. Also while I don't deny the importance here, this seems an awfully thin article for a head of a major state. I wouldn't expect full expansion for ITN but it would help to buff up some of it more. --M ASEM  (t) 01:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose military dictator who never won a free election, unless I am entirely mistook. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if he took the office by coup, he still remained a leader of a major country and played a key part in the country's history for nearly a decade. Importance is met even if that importance is from negative aspects. --M ASEM (t) 04:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: That he was a tyrant is irrelevant, he clearly played a part in his nation's history as its coup leader and head of state. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Referencing is pretty light. I certainly would like to see that improved before this hits the mainpage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, yes he was the president and a military general, but with later trial he was convicted and stripped off his titles. He was private when he was dead.--Joseph (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, the fact that he came to power with a coup, suspended civil liberties, politically transformed a country and had tens/hundreds of thousands tortured makes him all the more important. The court did decide to demote his rank, but to my knowledge, the decision was on appeal at the Supreme Court at the time of his death, so he is still getting a state funeral. --GGT (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and article is in good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The fact he was a dictator and stripped off all his titles doesn't deny that he was a very popular politician in Turkish and world politics in the 1980s. I cannot understand how the opposers here can rewrite the history from the past on the grounds of recent events. The death of a former president of a country with population of more than 70 million people, who has dramatically transformed his country at the tme of his reign and made impact in its foreign relations merits blurb. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a blurb here being appropriate; a major country but not so major as to singificantly affect the flow of world events in the grand scheme, compared with Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela. (A counterexample: when Fidel Castro dies, I would expect we have a blurb for that since his played significantly into the Cold War). --M ASEM (t) 14:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly not blurbworthy, stripped of power and out of office for 25 years. Oppose the listing but would be worried if we start giving disgraced tinpots blurbs due to old age. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Kumanovo shootings

 * Oppose Not yet of a size to be significant in overall world events. --M ASEM (t) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept your opinion Masem, but how can a terrorist attack on a democratic country violating its territorial integrity and sovereignty be not important enough for world news. 70 armed men started killing civilians and attacking governmental institutions. It was a terrorist attack. 5 policemen were killed, with further information on civilians. Were the Charlie Hebdo shooting not a significant event? - Phill24th (talk) . 20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * International media report that 22 people were killed in bloodiest clash since 2001 Macedonian insurgency. But we are just Pale Blue Dot. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Death toll is not a singular factor in ITN ,if the area has a history of violence. --M ASEM (t) 18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This region has a history of ethnic related violence, but not that kind of violence with heavy weaponry. This is not like shoot two cops/terrorist in the back and run. This was regular battle a direct challenge to state authority. Seams more like battle to last bullet. Nothing like this has happened in Macedonia since 2001. I want to emphasise that this is not a country with ongoing civil war. This clash is exception and I hope it stay that way. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And the issue that I see here is that the state authority has been in question for many years based on the sources. This may be the most violent of those but it is not suddenly that there was resistance to the sitting gov't. It's been there, so a more violent attack is not a surprising result. --M ASEM (t) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is somewhat difficult to evaluate, it needs clean-up for its English style. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's gonna get that. It's still pretty new, and constantly updated.- Phill24th (talk) . 20:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Think it looks pretty good for a new article for an ongoing conflict. And the English and grammar were constantly kept per rules, by myself. - Phill24th (talk) . 20:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that even the first sentence of the lead is simply not idiomatic English: "On 9 May 2015 an armed group [of ?es] clashed with [the] police force s of the Republic of Macedonia in Kumanovo[,] in [the] northern [part] of the [republic] Republic of Macedonia ." μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support that is major escalation in Albaniano-macedonian conflict. Five dead policemen in anti-islamist raid will be headline in any European country. Also macedonian news are full of civil war (граѓанска војна) and OSCE is sending people inside country.--Jenda H. (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment No, this was not an anti-islamist raid. It was part of an ethnical conflict between a group with two third of the population and a group that is a quarter of the population of the country. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is clearly much worst than foiled police raid. That is why, there is talk about new civil war. Either way, it is newsworthy. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Question Is there a reliable source for "Five policemen killed"? None of the sources listed above say anything stronger than "At least four officers had been seriously wounded", and the only source for the deaths in the article appears to be B92 which isn't the most reliable of sources. Mogism (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Reuters BBC News Yahoo News (via AP) - Phill24th (talk) . 22:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing is clear about what happened. How many people died on which side? What was the whole thing about? And the sources clearly put quotation mark around the term terrorists to emphasize that labelling them that way is questionable, making the proposed blurb one-sided propaganda. It might be a terror attack or it might be Macedonian police slaughtering people participating in a reasonable protest. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. But, you certainly haven't read the article. How is someone attacking civilians and a country not a terrorist. Have you even read one source in order to complain. Please, keep out of the discussion if you're just gonna keep us with your paradoxical and certainly biased viewpoints. - Phill24th (talk) . 22:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the term "terrorist" was used by all the news agencies, organizations, media, and government officials both from Macedonia and all other countries that had a statement on the issue (including Kosovo). So, LoveToLondon, please refrain from further arrogant behavior, and don't hinder the process. - Phill24th (talk) . 22:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They did not attack any any civilians, and there is no independent confirmation that they had plans to do. And please go somewhere else if you are too stupid for seeing the quotation marks in the sources even after I explicitly pointed them out. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, don't insult me. That's not the way a Wikipedia editor should behave. Secondly, how arrogant can you be. Since the nomination you've just been cluttering space with pathetic nonsense. If you have any sources, please share them. Otherwise how can I tell you're not just opposing this for own interests. - Phill24th (talk) . 23:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, they were planning to attack government institution, as for civilians there's still no info, but sources say they more than surely did. So please, I'm begging you, no more idiotic questions on the issue. - Phill24th (talk) . 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The international sources only say that the government claimed they were planning to attack government institutions. And international sources like the BBC put the term terrorists into quotation marks to make it clear that they are just repeating the propaganda of one side when using that word - the sources do not claim that they actually were terrorists. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not so much important which label we give to NLA. The news is about first big battle between NLA and Macedonian state since 2001. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Not significant enough for English language Wikpiedia's front page..  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that in case of ongoing situation is better to wait. But now international media report that 22 people were killed in bloodiest clash since 2001 insurgency. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * support - definitely after 5 peoples deaths in an otherwise calm area of Europe.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Calm area of Europe? There are several thousand soldiers from a NATO peacekeeping mission at the other side of the border since 1999 narrowly managing to avoid a new civil war. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure hope you change you're mind. As I made my case in the earlier discussion, this is far significant and a very serious case. A European democratic country was violently attacked by an armed extremist groups, threating its very stability and the regional safety on the Balkans. You can't tell me that isn't English language Wikipedia front page material. A quick Google search will tell you otherwise. This is just one in a long line of tensions and conflicts not just in Macedonia, but also Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, the Balkans, and the whole of Europe. It's our duty as a community, as Wikipedia, to signify these changes in history and make them public. - Phill24th (talk) . 22:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to right wrongs. And given the BBC article, there have been ongoing protests in this area for some time, so it's difficult to say this was a sudden even ala the Hebdo shootings. --M ASEM  (t) 22:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to compare this with the Habdo shootings, it was only an example earlier on. But you also can't compare a few anti-government Occupy-style protests to a full bloody escalation with five men dead.- Phill24th (talk) . 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, for your information, the protests and the armed group are two different groups. - Phill24th (talk) . 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * STRONG SUPPORT unlike in the US, in Europe there avery, very rarely lethal attacks on policemen. Furthermore, Albania's area has been quiet ever since Kosovo's independence, and this involvement of a third party is really notable. I agree that the article should be improved further though. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This was not an attack on policemen, this is part of a conflict between two big ethnic groups in one country. Currently the international sources are just repeating the very blurry government statements due to lack of independent information. What really happened is quite unclear at the moment, even the claimed involvement of a third party (or which) is not confirmed (from the BBC source: armed group from an unidentified neighbouring state, say officials). LoveToLondon (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have already pointed out before, LoveToLondon is a biased, arrogant, and blatant account filling up the discussion space with stupid and frankly pathetic nonsense, not making his case, or any point at all, for that matter. If he thinks that he could change anyones mind with stupidity and preposterous claims without showing us sources or anything at all, I'm sure that he's mistaking. - Phill24th (talk) . 23:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remember to not issue personal attacks against other editors. Comment on the content, not the contributor. --M ASEM (t) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just trying to make a point.- Phill24th (talk) . 23:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - But so long as the word "terrorist" is changed to militants in the blurb. Its notable since it is a major escalation in the NLA resurgence in the country that has been ongoing for at least a year.XavierGreen (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I chose the word "terrorist" because it was a terrorist attack. And I regarded this as a isolated incident that arose from those extremist Ethnic Albania views. We have to consider that the NLA officially had dissolved in 2001-2002 and most members went into the Democratic Union for Integration. So, in those regards I chose not to put the word "militant" in the blurb. But, if you feel otherwise you can put your proposal as an alternative blurb. - Phill24th (talk) . 00:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not entirely clear at the moment who initated the engagement, the IBT here [] reports that the Macedonian government claims that the fighting is as a result of government forces launching an offensive against the armed group. If it is indeed the NLA (or a reconstituted NLA), calling them terrorists is a politically charged term that is in essence pro-Macedonian. There is no evidence to suggest that there intentions are to cause terror among the population.XavierGreen (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I see your point. But, I live in Macedonia, and from what I hear on the media no one is calling them 'terrorists', but an 'armed group'. So, in essence, that wouldn't be, as you put it, a "pro-Macedonian" statement. The word "terrorist" is being mostly used by the english language media BBC, Deutsche Welle, and IBT which you referred to make your point earlier in the discussion. - Phill24th (talk) . 00:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the locals wouldn't be encouraged to evacuate if they didn't feel a certain threat from the militants. - Phill24th (talk) . 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The locals would also be encouraged to evacuate if the Macedonian police was starting a massacre on a previously peaceful group - you cannot place the blame on one side based on this information. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC article you link to says Interior ministry spokesman Ivo Kotevski said that the "terrorist group" was armed with bombs and automatic rifles., and by putting the term terrorists into quotation marks the BBC makes it clear that they are just citing the term the Macedonian government used - the BBC itself is not calling them terrorists. The Deutsche Welle source you link to says The Macedonian officials have refused to give more details about the so-called ‘armed group.’ - making it clear that they doubt that this information from the Macedonian government is true. These sources make it 100% clear that labels like terrorists and armed group are used by the pro-Macedonian side, and that neither term is an objective term the source itself would use - so none of these would be suitable to be used at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think the term "armed group" is POV, there clearly is enough evidence to suggest that the group of people opposing the Macedonian government forces are armed (ie, there are 5 police that have been killed and 30 wounded).XavierGreen (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources like Reuters and BBC are not using the term armed group themselves, they are very careful to only use it when citing statements from the Macedonian government. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What I can see per this and here you can see that Koso and Albania have condemned the actions of the group as an armed attack. Or are they also pro-Macedonian? - Phill24th (talk) . 01:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As someone who lives in Macedonia, I'll just comment that the article in its current shape is terrible and shouldn't appear on the main page untill the necesary corrections are made. Firstly, the prelude section should point to events that can be clearly linked to the attack but not to tell the country's history after the elections in 2014. What the BBC report in their news article is only the conflict from 2001 and nothing more. Secondly, the telephone tapping scandal, the protests against police brutality and these clashes ate three distinct things. The protests can be considered a result of some audio files released in the scandal and therefore it's proper to consider them dependant on the tapping scandal; however, there is no connection between these two things and the clashes, although the government and the opposition have already accused each other for being responsible. I strongly disagree with the view that it's not a sudden event as similar clashes with the police have been uncommon since the armed conflict in 2001. It's pretty much a similar act as the Charlie Hebdo shootings earlier this year. Thirdly, the BBC should be used as neutral source but the local media also need to be taken into consideration for specific details. Finally, I won't vote for this nomination because these few days I'm out of the country and don't know many details about what did really happen. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I added National Liberation Army to alterblurb it is good to tell about which armed group are we talking about. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In the sources, the information that this is the NLA is only on some business news (!) website, and the Macedonian government accuses a different group. Officially neither of the groups exist anymore, and it is problematic to name a group that has been disbanded more than 10 years ago as party - it might just be random people claiming to be part of this no longer existing group. The reliable sources don't claim that any of these no longer existing groups is a party in this event. LoveToLondon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to support this, but we still have a lead that consists of "On 9 May 2015 an armed group clashed with police forces of the Republic of Macedonia in Kumanovo in northern Republic of Macedonia." Not only is it inadequate at summarizing the article, it should either be written "with the police forces" or "with police forces from".  I expect to be too busy myself to address this for the next 20-something hours. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Marking ready: Article has been significantly approved and there appears to be at least a weak consensus to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unmarking Ready As already explained neither armed terrorist group nor Albanian National Liberation Army (which was dissolved over 10 years ago, the Macedonian government also deny that they were involved) is backed by the majority of sources. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is certainly nowhere near ready. The lead is a total fail per WP:LEAD.  Much of the article lacks idiomatic use of "the" or "a/an".  It doesn't meet the quality requirement for the front page. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The weak consensus to post is by a few Macedonians.
 * Each time you point out obvious nonsense like armed terrorist group or Albanian National Liberation Army or blatant lies like anti-islamist raid that specific point gets corrected, but there is a clear lack of neutral information due to the reliable sources making it clear that they are just repeating the Macedonian point of view due to lack of independent information and impossible to review that the article follows NPOV.
 * Even EU and NATO (who have a peace mission just a few miles away) made only general cooperate in clarifying what happened statements due to a complete lack of neutral information regarding what and why actually happened.
 * Also note that apart from Macedonia and its neighbouring countries this was not frontpage news, and was considered a relatively minor event by the European media.
 * LoveToLondon (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the lead text, and made more then a few adjustments, fixes, clarifications, and updates to the article. So, I think that the decision on weather to promote the article on the front should be made as fast as possible, three whole days have passed since the beginning of the conflict and it ended two days ago. - Phill24th (talk) . 05:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll just repeat that the article is still in a shape in which it shouldn't get posted and includes unrelated events that were linked by some Macedonian media on political grounds. I cannot understand how the telephone tapping scandal and the protests against police brutality are related to this as the largest media in the world did not even mention them in their news about the clashes. Since this was compared to the Charlie Hebdo shootings, please see the section in that article as an example what should be included. I also have to strongly reject LoveToLondon's unfriendly label that the "weak consensus to post" is by a few Macedonians. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the only reason those unrelated events, and I completely agree that they're unrelated, is that nearly every source, from every news agency, every single article, mentions them. - Phill24th (talk) . 10:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But, with them being in the prelude section, I don't see why can't we post the news on the front page now. It's not like the article is linking the two situations, it only mentions that the shootings happened amid a political crisis in the country. Charlie Hebdo didn't happen during a political crisis, or maybe not as large as in Macedonia, if that's what you're referring to. In addition, I also would like to reject LoveToLondon's comment "weak consensus to post is by a few Macedonians." - Phill24th (talk) . 10:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Kiril Simeonovski, which reliable (non-Macedonian) source did compare this to the Charlie Hebdo shootings? LoveToLondon (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Macedonian-language sources can't be reliable? - Phill24th (talk) . 12:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The language is not a problem, but the way Vujanović has been successful in getting rid of critical media and journalists in Macedonia makes media from Macedonia pretty unreliable for objective information. Within only 5 years the freedom of the press in Macedonia went from pretty good (ahead of Bulgaria and Greece) to worst in the region (far behind Albania and Kosovo). LoveToLondon (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The comparison was made in the discussion above to discuss whether it occurred as a sudden attack or not. I didn't mean it appeared in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that the two events are completely different. Here it is the police that started the attack - there are not even reliable sources confirming that the people that were attacked by the police really planned any terror attacks. Considering that the Macedonian government even called a peaceful short watchtower occupation where noone was injured a "terrorist attack", I would not take it too seriously when Vujanović and the people working for him call people terrorists. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think that we should rely on independent and neutral non-Macedonian sources, then you're encouraged to do so and begin improving the article as well as proposing a more proper blurb. You've got some strong points that may be helpful but waving an argument on how the country has worsened its freedom of press over the past five years and wrongly labelling people for being pro-Macedonian or Macedonian voters is a completely destructive and unnecessary behaviour in this discussion. I assure you that you've got the freedom to use the sources you're referring to and you could have already done enough instead of lecturing other things here. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Kiril, LoveToLondon doesn't do "improving articles". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be much better than the last time I checked. Any further objections to posting? --Tone 15:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support posting at this stage. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Prokaryote-eukaryote transition

 * Comment: New Archaea are constantly being discovered and the blurb should probably be reworded to explain the significance of the finding better; right not it's not very compelling.  Spencer T♦ C 20:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made a better blurb. Please note that since the Eukaryotes arose from the Archaea, an Archaea can be a transitional form. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, taxonomically interesting, and had quite a few reports in the lay press. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Abductive although the article needs to be copyedited for dabs and other issues before we post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, BTW I'm not sure whether my voe as contributor counts or is clubbed with nominator. AshLin (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting. new archea notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as an interesting scientific discovery and a nice ITN material. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hosni Mubarak sentenced to prison

 * Support Yep, and Mohamed Morsi was posted recently. Brandmeistertalk  17:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements Topic is important enough, but the article has a half-dozen some CNs to be fixed, and while there it would be nice to tidy up some of the proseline in the last few sections. It's not too far off, just needs a handful of cites. --M ASEM (t) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support significant story, the beginning of the end of this "reign". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant that this one finally get some prison time.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support significant to the wider Arab spring/Arab Winter issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] WHO declared Liberia ebola free

 * Oppose Perhaps tomorrow someone crosses the border from one of the neighbouring countries where the Ebola epidemic is still ongoing and infects new people. Let's wait until Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa has ended, not one ITN for each country. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait on LTL's logic. Given several land-connected W. African nations are still suffering, it's the end of the epidemic across all that will be the point to raise at ITN. It's a good sign that the epidemic is waning but not the end of it. --M ASEM (t) 13:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support now - Liberia was the epicenter of the outbreak and has been disease free for 6 weeks. That is a substantial milestone.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: This is significant news, but since a declaration that the outbreak is over altogether cannot be far off, I wonder if we shouldn't wait until then. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support this country has been by far the worst hit by ebola, and IMO in Guinea it will quite a long time before they get rid of it (locals still attack the aid workers). Nergaal (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding support. We've had the ebola story in ITN ongoing for months, this seems some kind of closure. I find it fitting to post. --Tone 19:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: the end of the epidemic in Liberia alone is important enough to warrant a post, per ThaddeusB. Quoting from a report, "Liberia’s triumph is more remarkable still given the country’s poor access to healthcare." As some cases in the neighboring countries were only diagnosed after death and there is ambiguity regarding the spread of the disease, it appears that we are still at least a few months from the end of the epidemic (last case being reported + 42 days waiting period). --GGT (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per LTL. Wait until all human-to-human transfer in this outbreak ends. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support important moment in this "pandemic", we get hysterical on the way up, let's be balanced on the way down, this is real news and genuinely significant. Article is updated, ready to go. P.S. It is hysterical that we seem have a bunch of clinical scientists who are claiming to know better than WHO.  Are we hear to report the reliable sources or are we here to report the original research of one or two users of Wikipedia who have their own belief and editing structure which doesn't necessarily align with many/most of the rest of us? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you ever listen to yourself. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if anyone ever listens to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If we post this to ITN now, we have to post at least 3 Ebola ends ITN blurbs this year, also for Sierra Leone and Guinea (that have death tolls comparable to Liberia). Even more if there is a new outbreak in Liberia or elsewhere. Is this topic worth one ITN blurb each time one country is declared Ebola-free, or only one ITN blurb when the whole outbreak has ended? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The rainy season is coming. I see no point for waiting another year for end of epidemic in Sierra Leone and Guinea. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - very important.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it very important? Just asserting that says nothing that wasn't already included in the idea of "support".  This is a bureaucratic announcement related to a geographical boundary which they virus does not respect.  Of course the WHO has to justify it's existence, but we don't need to report a hope as a fact.  The true story will be whether this epidemic burns itself out or whether it becomes endemic.  In the meantime, announcing small geographical increments is appropriate for ongoing, not blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At least there are no people dying from Ebola in Monrovia slums. If someone cross the border he will be cached and isolated like in Senegal, Mali or Nigeria. That is huge difference from times when WHO and MSF were sending ebola-ill people home due to lack of capacity. --Jenda H. (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Liberia was the worst hit country in terms of fatalities. There is no reason to wait; we can post other updates if and when they happen. Calidum T&#124;C 14:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think we need to post every country in this epidemic that becomes free of Ebola, but this one seems notable given what happened there. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Idiomatic English Can we have an actually proper English Blurb?  "The World Health Organization declares [[Liberia Ebola-free?  Omitting the definite article is headlinese, and "declaring as" is simply barbaric; reworded it would literally mean "As Ebola free, World Health Organization declares Liberia". μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Al Khalis prison break

 * support - high number of deaths. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once article is improved . I was planning on nominating this myself - unusual event with a high number of deaths. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article decent quality, marking "Ready".  Spencer T♦ C 16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted done deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Disappearance of Etan Patz

 * Weak oppose: If this is really significant, the blurb doesn't convey why. This is a 45-year-old case and Etan Patz isn't exactly a household name. The blurb doesn't even identify his nationality. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the CNN link in the nomination, the case "sparked an era of heightened awareness of crimes against children." Also, an article in the Guardian states that "For a whole generation of US parents, and children, the words Etan Patz are haunting." I have modified the blurb.  Everymorning   talk  00:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been a cause celebre in the NYC area since it happened, and the victim's name is certainly known by people old enough to remember the case, but only a conviction might have merited posting, a mistrial certainly doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1 should try to improve his math skills - there is clearly room for improvement. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I'm dignifying your gratuitous and nasty swipe with a response, but I mistakenly read the "9" as a "0". Do you want me to flagellate myself, too? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother. LoveToLondon has been around for many years, in one guise or another, and is goading you.  Don't get sucked into it.  He'll be editing from another account soon enough, just ignore and move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Respectfully Oppose This is basically a local crime story. It was a big deal back in the 70's but seems to have fallen off everyone's radar outside of New York over the decades. Also this is a mistrial which does not end the case definitively. We usually only report major criminal trials after a a conviction or acquittal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose never heard of the case, as I would assume most Wikipedians outside the US. I think something like 80% of kidnappings are by family members, and the majority of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. In New York parents get the cops called on them if they let their kids walk a few blocks. See Stranger danger and Missing white woman syndrome. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure we should be posting the results of every mistrial at ITN, it may be a better candidate for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until or if the guy (or someone else) is convicted, which could take months or years. It was a watershed missing-persons case originally. But although the guy confessed many years later, there is some question as to the validity of that confession - and presumably that's why the one juror refused to vote "guilty". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash

 * Support, significant due to the deaths of notable people.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending news stability The event is important, but the article has some questions that should be the type that should be easily answered within a day of the event - it's currently a bit confusing (why were all those ambassadors and spouses on board for example?) It needs just a bit more backing up from the news to make the article in better shape. --M ASEM  (t) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Air crash with notable individuals on board. Article is of sufficient quality and length. Mamyles (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Crash involving notable persons, relevant to the countries involved. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: people so notable they don't even have redlinks, let alone articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest the Philippine ambassador to Pakistan might not have an article because of systematic bias rather than lack of notability. But please, rave on. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No raving, just a question. I'm sure the Azerbaijani ambassador to Mongolia is notable too.  If these individuals aren't considered notable by Wikipedia standards, we rarely (if ever) have standalone minor military crash articles in which they have perished.  I'm just saying how it is.  But clearly you're having a bad day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They had a bad day. I'd say those ambassadors are as notable as any other ambassador. The lack of an article doesn't imply lack of notability and arguing otherwise leads nowhere. Brandmeistertalk  20:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, well take it up with the aviation project whose guidelines follow precisely what I've suggested, and hence the article is up for deletion. Lack of an article most certainly does imply lack of notability these days.  If you can demonstrate that the individuals noted in the crash are notable per Wikipedia guidelines, so much the better, and the article will not be deleted.  I look forward to seeing you save the day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can tell what kind of day I'm having from one full sentence and a short piece of sarcasm? Remarkable. And your response in no way addresses the question of systemic bias: not every person who is in principle notable enough to merit an article will have one. This looks like exactly such a case. I haven't !voted on the story itself - I don't feel able to judge. But your objection seems unreasonable on the face of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above, a military crash involving a few foreigners, not at all notable in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - the article has been nominated for deletion. That will need resolved before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been nominated by the only opposer so far. That looks a whole lot like gaming the system. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Read the arguments, cancel your bad faith, do something about it, whatever, but don't accuse me of anything like that without having the balls to back it up.  I have staunchly worked against the aviation project in many cases (just ask User:Ahunt for some examples) but in this case, we have a military accident with a few foreigners involved.  It's embarrassing that you choose to use my adherence to guidelines as an excuse to lie about me and my motives.  I always had a hint that you had a clue, but clearly that was a poor investment of good faith on my behalf.  As I've said in the AFD, if you or anyone who keeps yelling about the purported notability of the deceased could be arsed to actually do something about it and write articles about them, we wouldn't have a problem.  I look forward to seeing these new articles, then the AFD can close, my oppose can be struck and we're all good.  But in the meantime, take your bad faith, and your lies, and stick them somewhere appropriate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support in principle for notability of victims, it is not true that AfD's have to be resolved before posting, if it were, any editor could unilaterally veto any ITN nom by submitting an AfD, which are almost never resolved until an item is stale. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is in WP:ITN criteria that articles may not have any red-level tags. Though, I would likely support a change proposal to address this on WT:In the news if you'd like to change that. Mamyles (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to write down that the bad faith use of an AfD to veto an ITN nomination is prohibited; that seems self-evident. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which, of course, this was not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Marked as Ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Pakistan has declared a National day of mourning, propose altblurb mentioning it. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Omar Khadr released

 * Oppose "on bail" implies that he is still considered a criminal by authorities, just not held in captivity. --M ASEM (t) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unimportant unless he does something else of note. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given two jihadis shooting up a free speech event and then being shot to death by a rather good off-duty police marksist was dismissed as american gun violence (!), I doubt this will ever be posted even if he does commit another war crime. μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose he is on bail pending an appeal against his conviction. If the appeal is successful (i.e. the Candian court accepts he was tortured into pleading guilty by the Americans), then that may be a story worth posting. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Fact: A teen and Canadian citizen who was tortured at Gitmo by USA. Eulalefty (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the slur in your comment, I assume you're happy with him having killed an American soldier. That doesn't make it ITN material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obviously a widely covered case, but since when do we post releases? Also, BB, where on Earth are you seeing a slur? Also, when did you stop beating your wife? Fgf10 (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] UK election

 * Oppose running anything of the sort on the basis of exit polling. This nomination, and especially the specific claim in the blurb, is premature by at least 6 hours. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry; I was in no way suggesting posting exit poll results; simply that I based the current blurb on that. I fully expect it to change and nothing should be posted until we have the actual results. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until the actual results are known and not just the exit poll projections (probably 6-12 hours unless things end up unexpectedly close and in need of recounts), but yes a blurb should eventually be posted. If known in the near future, a blurb should probably also mention who recieves/retains the prime minister position.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. For a UK election, maybe we should use the British English "relative majority" in place of "plurality". Formerip (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when the actual results come in. No posting until then, because if expert opinion is anything to go by, these exit polls are a bit off. Also recommend re-writing the blurb, in BE. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How would the blurb be different in BE? Do you have a suggestion? HaEr48 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Upon appropriate updating of the article with firm numbers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when one of the major parties concedes (6+ hours away) -- Aronzak (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the SNP wins every constituency they contest, which seems like a real possibility at this point, that should probably be mentioned in the blurb. They're looking to increase their share literally from one-tenth of the seats in Scotland to all of them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Liberal Democrats have held onto Orkney & Shetland. Unclear whether Labour is going to eke out any of the working-class constituencies in Glasgow or Edinburgh where they've traditionally done very well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They eked out one. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt blurb, plurality is a perfectly cromulent word, even if it's not used in the News of the World. μηδείς (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not The Times either. It's a perfectly good word but it's a North American word. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a strong case to be made that RP is a degraded version of the English language. Given "plurality" is a Latin word, calling it "North American" is a bit on the other side of silly.  In any case, the right side won decisively in Britain, so we don't need to worry about testing comprehension of the term in reality. μηδείς (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how RP is relevant. And it's not "a Latin word", is it, it's an English word derived from Latin. But you're saying our article on it, which describes its usage, is "a bit on the other side of silly"? Perhaps I should have said "is a word used in North America". Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC) (By the way, we have more than two sides over here.)


 * Comment: Well, it looks like the Tories have garnered enough seats to govern outright. The party is now projected to win 327 to 330 seats, more than the tipping point of 326 in a House of 650 (discounting the fact that the Sinn Fein MPs will, as always, refuse to take their seats in Westminster). -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose per Kudzul, assuming the outright majority is confirmed and the relevant article has been sufficiently twisted. μηδείς (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Keep on rocking in the free world.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb ii. It's a "majority".  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb ii once confirmed. "majority" is the common term, eg used on the BBC Home page. Whizz40 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb ii once confirmed. The word "plurality" is quite inappropriate (or did I miss the UK Primaries??) Only 12 seats left to declare now. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC) (although the biggest news is actually the SNP result)
 * Support alt blurb ii or iii. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support #2 or #3 Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The repeated United Kingdom in the blurbs should be avoided, and more importantly they are factually incorrect; the Conservatives have won a majority in the House of Commons not the Parliament of the United Kingdom (which is the Commons plus the Lords).  23230  talk 10:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: As of right now, our article reports the Tories winning 302 seats, yet several people above are noting they are projected to win 327+seats. We should be sure to get it right, because the difference is a Big Deal, since 302 would still require them to hold a coalition with the LibDems, while 327 would be an absolute majority.  It would make a big difference in which blurb we should run, and if the blurbs that imply an absolute majority are correct, then our article is WRONG, and shouldn't be posted.  If the bolded article is correct, then we should run with a blurb that states they won a relative majority and would need to form a coalition government.  Let's get this right!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that it's wrong but you're wrong that it would "require them hold a coalition with the Lib Dems. With eight seats, that wouldn't help get them over 325 from the 302 currently stated.  And it's not 327 in any case, it's 326, but because Sinn Fein don't take their seats, and the speaker doesn't vote, it's more like 323 for absolute majority.  In any case, Cameron is on his way to see the Queen to ask permission to form the next government, job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. The "302" you refer to is actually the results of the previous election, hence why UKIP have two seats (whereas they now actually have one). I'm not sure why our lead infobox here isn't like the one in the 2010 article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've replaced that somewhat confusing infobox with a more up-to-date one which hopefully doesn't confuse you or others. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note 2 Con currently have 325. While this is mathematically 1 short of an overall majority, the Speaker doesn't vote, so they have a technical majority now. Or we could wait a teeny bit longer for number 326 to arrive. Either way, ready to post very soon. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, blurb 2 please. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now 326. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready with a consensus for alt blurb 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question/Comment I was considering posting Alt#2 as the consensus choice, with several ITN regulars saying it was ready (and after an e/c I see TRM has marked it as such). But a couple of concerns got in the way.  First, is the article really ready?  I see some updated information added to the lead, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in the body of the article .  The Coalitions section also seems outdated.  And the infobox has 2010's results.  I know it's going to be constantly updated, but is this in a satisfactory state now?  Second, a comment from Martin23230 above sounds correct to me, but no one agreed or disagreed with him, and as an American I don't know enough to know the answer.  Isn't he right that the last link should be to the House of Commons page, not the Parliament page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Martin23230's comment, although it's a distinction habitually lost on the major press outlets, even the BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Martin23230's comment, on both counts: the repetition of "United Kingdom" is ugly and unnecessary, and it's the House of Commons they have a majority in, not Parliament as a whole. I believe the blurb ought to be as follows: "In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons." Also, they have 327 seats now, so the blurb can be posted as soon as the article is ready. Waltham, The Duke of 12:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the body of the article is becoming better updated all the time, and the still un-updated and now-less-important-than-everyone-thought coalitions section is not reason to hold things up further. I'll post the revise blurb (I am assuming that almost everyone who liked Alt #2 would like the revised blurb better).  Give me a couple of minutes to do this right, I don't do ITN much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * First blurb now replaced with one which is more accurate in two senses. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, is there a reason the blurbs don't mention Cameron? (Yes, I know it's a parliamentary system, etc.) Sca (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to changing to "the Conservative Party's David Cameron...", although it makes the blurb a bit long. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just a vulgar American, but most coverage I've seen, even British, gets Cameron in the headline somehow. Sca (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the section's image to one of David Cameron and inserted our standard "led by [politician's name]" language. —David Levy 13:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. Sca (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Alexion purchases Synageva

 * Conflicted $8.6 billion is A LOT of money, but I've never heard of either of these companies before. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since they both make only rare disease drugs, that isn't surprising. As I said, part of the notability here is the story of how much money these type of drugs are becoming worth to the industry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose once again, a capital merger that results in nothing but layoffs for middle management; not ITNworthy. Business news should consist of things like new patents, products, and innovations, not economies of scale.  I'd support the decision by McDonald's to roll out a 24 hour breakfast menu over this. μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right or wrong, new products have zero chance of making ITN. Even the largest ones have been rejected by a large majority.  And a patent has even less chance - saying one will be important is pure speculation, I'm afraid.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus must be correct, then. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose., Two companies that are basically unknown to the average reader, for less than the typical "big" merger numbers, merging in an industry in which mergers are a major mode of doing business. (In pharm, if your latest product(s) are a failure, you look for a buyer, and if the product(s) are a success, buyers come looking for you.) Abductive  (reasoning) 15:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I've never heard of either of these companies, and I'm generally pretty good about paying attention to this kind of stuff. That's not to say it isn't significant, but I really don't think the average reader is going to know these names at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't seem to be a big business deal in the context of global economics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Knurów riots

 * Oppose Standard protest, no sign this has a larger impact on the world events at large. --M ASEM (t) 19:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as local news with no broader impact. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd dispute it's local news, it is definitely been national news, it's certainly been grabbing the headlines at all major Polish news outlets last few days Abcmaxx (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not of sufficient size for posting, and would need some work to come across as professional encyclopedic prose. Even then the POV is also rather heavy, with the incidental death from a rubber bullet of a fan who'd rushed the field being described as "not deserving death". I think an AfD might be a more likely outcome than an ITN posting at this point, although I thank Abcmaxx for the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly not in the news from where I'm sitting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] CO2 levels reach global milestone
Another milestone was passed, at 400ppm. Although is "just another milestone" quite a few news publications are running news on it. Nergaal (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An article to post and suggested blurb would be helpful. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use the suggested template when making a nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - We posted the 400ppm milestone once already. I suppose this is technically different in some way, but we are going to need some explanation as to why it should be posted again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose And it will likely be broken again more in the future. Unless there's a established scientific level of significant note (for example, a level that would be acutely critical to the survival of a flora or fauna species), we should not report this. --M ASEM (t) 17:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As Thaddeus points out, we posted a couple years ago when the Mauna Loa Observatory (the most famous measurement site) hit 400 ppm.  The global average, a synthesis of many stations, has marginally greater scientific value, but I don't think it is sufficiently important as new information to warrant posting.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as we'll soon see it over 410, 420 etc etc. Not a notable milestone, especially considering we've been there once before.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM; if there was a specific, tangible effect (as Masem alludes to) that might be different. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] NSA Collection of Phone Records Ruled Illegal

 * While this is great news, the story is far from over. The court sent part of the issue back to a lower court, and it could always be appealed to the Supreme Court. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or Section 215 can be changed when the Patriot act is up for reauthorization. WSJ "How the legal case proceeds depends greatly on what Congress does next. If lawmakers reauthorize the current version of the Patriot Act, the case will likely head to the Supreme Court. If Congress passes a modified version of the law, the lower and appeals courts will likely have to take a fresh look at the new language to see if it passes muster. In their ruling, the judges also noted that if Congress decides to approve some version of the phone-data-collection program in coming days, then the privacy issue could be revisited in court."-- Aronzak (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait (Oppose posting now) This will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, whom may overturn it. Likely, the government will continue the program until such an appeal is completed, as there's nothing in this ruling about an immediate injunction. If the program is cancelled as a result of this or a new law, that would be the preferred time to post. Mamyles (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS will probably not hear this before June 1, when the Patriot act needs to be reauthorized. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Intermediate court decision, no injunction issued. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 99% of cases that get to the appellate courts stop there. The Supreme Court hears very very few cases on appeal. This case was decided unanimously and there are no conflicting decisions from other appeals courts. I think it extremely unlikely that the SCOTUS will take this on appeal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The other thing is Congress can change Section 215 of the Patriot act. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Notable ruling by a court that is the highest court in normal cases. The news is now, not when the Republicans decide to continue the law anyway or the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait this will almost certainly be appealed to the supreme court. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Substantial international attention is being paid to issues of privacy and anti-terrorism legislation (Eg Canada has just passed an unpopular anti-terror law) and this has international public interest because many countries have very prominent debates about the role of government - citizens deserve to know this update. Even if it goes to appeal this is news in and of itself. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anyone thinks this decision will actually change practices, I've got some beachfront property in Kansas I can sell you for a really good deal. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment suggests that your opposition is based on a disagreement with the news as opposed to the actual ITN worthiness of the event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Events which don't make actual changes to the way anything works are only marginally newsworthy. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, the Patriot Act expires on June 1, and needs to be re-authorized. Public discussions about Section 215 will result from this ruling - even if the NSA's practises don't change. Public attention and public debate over changes to Section 215 will follow. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support we have no bigger, nor more important news in our frontpage. SeraV (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose While it is important, it was not ruled on a constitutional basis and was sent back to a lower court for review. The case is far from over. --M ASEM (t) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you care to comment on the fact that the Patriot Act is less than a month from review, and is the subject of public debate? -- Aronzak (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's speculation that this will have any influence on the upcoming renewal. I'd be ignorant to not assume that the GOP will try to codify this into the law as to short circuit the court ruling, but that's a guess, and that's not sufficient for ITN posting. --M ASEM (t) 18:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose perhaps this is news, but only to those who live in a vacuum. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mass surveillance is kind of a big deal, no matter what country you live in. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A legal tempest in a teapot. The only ruling that will actually have some legal standing in the U.S. is a SCOTUS decision.--WaltCip (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This idea that the Patriot Act is a GOP invention is way off base. Both Clinton and Obama voted in its favor. It's true GWB didn't veto the bill, but it's long been unclear whether he understood what the veto power was. μηδείς (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The act came in following 9/11 and had less scrutiny than if it were proposed right now. Some of the senators who voted for it say they didn't anticipate how section 215 is used. Republicans are split, with Mike Lee and Rand Paul opposing mass surveillance, and Mitch McConnell and John McCain among those supporting authorizing it explicitly. Both sides have to have this debate publicly, and with the public split on the issue they'll have to be accountable to the voters. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, basically the Tea Party Republicans and the Democrats with any independent moral fibre left oppose this. The go-along establishment spending bill fascists-of-the-middle in neither party want to be seen as opposed to anything.  We can wait for the omnibus bill-slash-Supreme Court decision. μηδείς (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Oldest modern bird

 * Support: A noteworthy scientific find, far more significant than a dinosaur with an unusual wrist structure or whatever we posted last month. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yi qi had an entirely new and unknown wing structure. This bird is simply the earliest yet found to have a fan of tail feathers like modern birds. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, these "push back the date" fossils typically are not particularly significant. All you have to do is look at previous examples, and you'll see how few scientific articles result from them. No, what is scientifically interesting are missing link fossils or even better, living transitional forms such as Lokiarchaeota. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment notability might be there, but I think the article needs more explanation for the lay reader about how this species fits into Evolution of birds or Origin of avian flight or Origin of birds otherwise it's not interesting/informative to non-experts. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "Modern bird" is incorrect - this usually refers to the group Aves (or Neornithes). Archaeornithura is the oldest member of the lineage including modern birds, plus some but not all of their extinct relatives (Ornithuromorpha). I worry the significance of this might be lost on a lay audience without much more in-depth explanation, and trying to boil it down to a sound byte as in the suggestions above render the facts of the news item incorrect. "The reason being is that this bird is highly developed - more so than previously found less ancient species" On the contrary, this find was not only expected but had previously been predicted. The oldest "opposite bird", the sister lineage to ornithuromorphs, had been found in the same aged rocks a decade or two ago, so we knew these types of birds must have also been around at that time and that the divergence had to have been earlier. The press releases are severely over-blowing the significance of this find, unfortunately; or, at least, mis-stating the significance. IMO it's interesting because, like Tiktaalik, we predicted this should exist and then found it in the right age and location. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest an alternative blurb that is more precise? Using more words is not an issue if needed... Science uses phrases such as "The earliest known relative of modern birds" and "dawn of modern birds".  And their quoted expert remarked "New bird fossils seem to come out every week now, and they are revolutionizing our understanding of bird evolution. But of all the new specimens, this is one of the most important found over the last decade".  Surely you aren't accusing Science of getting it wrong a buying into hype for a paper they didn't even publish?  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support the ALT blurb posted above. To answer your question, phrases like "dawn of modern birds" would be meaningful if this were the oldest known modern bird (Aves/Neornithes; a member of the crown group), but it isn't. "The earliest known relative of modern birds" is also an objectively meaningless phrase. Archaeopteryx is related to modern birds and is older, as is Tiktaalik, really. This new one is more closely related than either of those, but there are also closer relatives that happen to be younger (like Ichthyornis. So yes, I'd have to say Science is being a bit sensationalist here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To put this another way, Ornithothoraces, a clade that contains modern birds and enantiornithines, was already known to originate 130.7 Ma ago. We now know it's daughter clade, Ornithuromorpha, arose at the same time (as you would predict in an evolutionary branching event). Ornithurae is a more inclusive clade containing modern birds plus things like Ichthyornis and Hesperornis - this arose 87 Ma ago and could be called the dawn of modern birds. Actual modern birds arose 85 million years ago - you could justifyably argue that that's a better thing to call the dawn of modern birds, since it is, well... the dawn of modern birds, not one of their ancestors. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT suggested. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: very noteworthy. significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have a very strong opinion about posting or not posting this, but agree with DinoGuy2 that the proposed blurb doesn't appear accurate and can't go up as it is. Formerip (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not just the blurb, the article needs work too. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , Please elucidate what kind of work does the article need! AshLin (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will defer to User:Dinoguy2 on this. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The same Dinoguy that said he supports the article and has already made the edits he felt were needed? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added some additional material to the article indicating Archaeornithura's place in taxonomic history. I believe we have consensus for the altblurb and are ready to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not Ready I have removed the ready tag since besides the nominator there are only two supports, and looking at the comments it's clear the general consensus is one of doubt, not support. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well we don't count votes on Wikipedia, but if we did there would be four total supports (not three) and zero opposition. The concerns of the neutrals have been addressed through a new blurb and through editing the article.  Unless there are specific concerns that remain unaddressed, then I reiterate that I think we are ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just to make it formal, mwahahahaha. This being posted wouldn't offend me, but it's just an incremental pushback, as noted by others above who have also not noted their support. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only Abductive's comment is about the incremental nature, and I don't think you can infer opposition from it. Those by Formerip and Aronzak are about the blurb (addressed) and article (thought to be addressed).  You certainly can't infer anything resembling opposition from those.  At worst, that makes 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 slight lean oppose (Abductive, "typically are not particularly significant"), and 1 slight lean support (Aronzak, "notability might be there"). 4:1 or 5:2 is usually sufficient consensus, although obviously the actually comments need to be assessed, not the numbers.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing this one as it seems not to be typical. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While Dinoguy2 has stated his support of a specific blurb as opposed to another, neither he, Aronzak, nor Formerip who have all commented on the thread, has said he actually supports the nomination itself. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, of course a "support blurb X" means support posting the story with blurb X. And you cannot invoke "comments" as somehow implied opposes.  FormerIP is explicitly neutral (just didn't like original blurb) and Aronzak said he could possibly support on article improvement (which has occurred).  Nice try though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, I have opposed nominations, yet expressed support for some alt blurbs as opposed to others. Those editors can speak for themselves, obviously, but when I comment and don't say support, my lack of support is normally implied.  As for your sarcasm, it is uncalled for.  At least say something witty (mwahahaha) if you're going to be obnoxious. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm was used, unless you are counting "LOL"(?) I'm not sure why saying you can't count "comments" as agreeing with your position is obnoxious, but that certainly was not my intention ... Anyway, yes, a "comment" can be a form of oppose, but usually it just means "X needs addressed, otherwise neutral".  And here, I don't see how you can possibly read anything else into the comments.  The specific points raised have been addressed, so they comments are neutral.  However, do I invite  and  to make their neutrality explicit if they are so inclined (or to point out if the alt blurb + article editing have not fixed their concern if that is the case).  If someone meant "neutral but prefer altblurb, if anything is posted", I would think they wouldn't use the word support.  However, I invite  to clarify if he is so inclined. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I actually come here to relax, so if it's okay I'll leave it there. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be "...oldest known member of...". At present it reads as if the bird is a clade. Formerip (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An Ornithuromorph is a member of Ornithuromorpha, just as a mammal is a member of mammalia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but an ornithuromorph is not a clade. Anyway, I see it's been changed now. Formerip (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Jon Burge reparations

 * Oppose since this is an extrajudicial attempt to limit damages. Were such cases to go to civil trial they might win and have won huge verdicts.  From the Guardian article: "Chicago has for years substituted large cash payouts – victims of police abuse received more than $50 million in 2014".  In this case victims could at most be given $100,000 each, and money would go towards "building a memorial".  This is simply offering a settlement in hope that would-be plaintiffs won't recover much larger sums.  What is unprecedented is not the sum, but that the city council is trying to buy off litigants preemptively. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, they are trying to limit monetary payouts and even more importantly, bad press. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This is local news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose local news, doesn't rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too local an event; little if any national significance. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Far too local an event for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 14:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] New oldest galaxy

 * Meah previous record was 700 mil years, this is 670. Nergaal (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting way of skirting the no "meh" policy. Agree, basically, that a 5% increment doesn't add much to our knowledge, although I supported the last nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: The EGS-zs8-1 galaxy is estimated to be nearly 13.1 billion years old - the most distant and earliest galaxy yet found - closer than any other galaxy to the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago - seems worthy imo atm - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we title this "Oldest new galaxy"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it matters (maybe you are just joking) as the label is for the discussion header only. But, I suppose either would be correct.  "New (record for) oldest galaxy" or "Oldest (amount of time ago it became a) new galaxy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it doesn't, and I have to admit I was. But thanks for your reply. Odd that, isn't it. I guess it must be because light travels in bendy lines. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Incremental, article as written gives no explanation why galaxies can't or shouldn't be as old as this one. It seems that it just so happens that this galaxy was a bit bigger and so its light reached the Earth. But no scientific value whatsoever, I'm afraid. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Deflategate

 * Although it was a lead story on CBS News this evening, unless something comes of it I don't think it's ITN material. For example, if Brady were given a major suspension, or if the Patriots were forced to vacate their Super Bowl win. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait. If the Patriots / Brady are hit with extraordinary sanctions as a result of this, then I could see including it on ITN; however, I don't think the publication of the investigative report by itself warrants inclusion.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What sport are we talking about? Formerip (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sportsball. Wait, not really that big a deal.  Jehochman Talk 00:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know what the penalties, if any, are. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose A sports team used under-inflated balls in one of the thousands of ball games played this year. Seriously?  You think this is for ITN? Stephen 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Like Stephen, my first thought when I saw this here was "Seriously?" If they revoke the Super Bowl championship, I'd reconsider, but they'll likely get a slap on the wrist and nothing will change, making this not an ITN-worthy sports story. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the feedback, I'll withdraw this nom and try to assess the significance of stories more carefully before making any more nominations here. Sorry. Everymorning   talk  02:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Alberta general election, 2015

 * Oppose on article quality, which includes an orange maintenance tag, and weak oppose on notability. (Is it possible to elect a member of the SNP in an English constituency?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on British politics, so I couldn't think of an appropriate example. Basically, think of the most conservative region of the UK, then imagine them electing the most left wing major party. It's that kind of surprise.
 * I can see the point about notability, but this is getting coverage around the world, and this isn't routine coverage. There was another election this week (in PEI) that got very little attention in comparison. A quick google search has turned up results from the BBC, The Huffington Post, The Guardian and The New York Times. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment At this provincial level this is rather a political tidbit, if it were the first Prime Minister from a fooian party in foo years, then yes. Better for DYK instead. Brandmeistertalk  20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, she is the first NDP Premier in the province. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose No mention of oil sands or the Keystone pipeline - the only issue of interest outside Canada based on Canada/US energy issues. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, altblurb should mention 30% swing. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the blurb is rather basic, largely because I wasn't sure what to put in there. There are a lot of things you could note, but length is an issue. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I wanted there to be a section on the implications this has for oil sands/Keystone in the article body with good sourcing (not the blurb). Agree with Resolute below - this is a highly technical article about the provincial result (not about the broader implications) and is more suited to a feature article on the specifics rather than news coverage.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. This election was a historic bloodbath that political science students will be studying for generations.  But the nuances and historical factors that make this such a fascinating result aren't really suited to an ITN entry.  It's actually the kind of thing that would be best taken to FA for a main page appearance that way. Resolute 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very weak oppose. I understand that this is significant in Canadian politics, but I agree with what Resolute has said in that it would be hard to post a concise blurb for this essentially sub-national election. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: A very exciting election campaign, certainly, but we haven't posted provincial/state election news in the past. I see no reason to change that this time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Resolute sums it up nicely. Canuck 89 (what's up?)  06:26, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Notley wasn't elected premier of Alberta. She was designated premier of Alberta. In the Westminister system, the head of government isn't elected. The only position Notley was elected to, was MLA for her district. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post provincial elections results. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This was closed by Kudzu1 at 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC) but I discovered precedent and I feel it's worth noting. On my talk page an IP informed me that in spite of what several users claim, we have in fact posted provincial election results at least once. In May 2011 we posted the West Bengal state assembly election and here's the ITN discussion. I don't know if it changes much, but it does show that the opposition based solely on "we don't post provincial elections results" should be disregarded. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  22:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat shaky to argue that a single posting 4 years ago qualifies as "precedent" while ignoring other subnational elections that have been nominated but not posted in the past 4 years.  Spencer T♦ C 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Errol Brown

 * Weak support in principle. Certainly important in terms of British soul music, but is that too narrow a field? Article does need work to make it more than a collection of more-or-less random info. Maybe there can be some summarizing from the sourced parts of the Hot Chocolate article. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvement. Importance set by OBE, however, while the sourcing in the article is fine, the article begs to explain why he is important and meriting of the OBE (which i don't doubt exist, just not presented). A paragraph on his importance/reception/legacy or the like would help significantly. --M ASEM (t) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A general comment that, although maybe we can take UK honours into account, they shouldn't be considered an automatic pass. They're given to a lot of people, including many who clearly would not pass the RD criteria (teachers, doctors, community leaders, public sector managers, even a crossing lady once, I believe). Even with celebrities, they are often not a direct reflection of the recipient's achievements in their field, but may take into account their support for a charity or work they have done for the royal family. I'm not saying this means we shouldn't post Errol Brown, but we should base it on an overall assessment of his importance in his field. Formerip (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose article quality but support notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. While he no doubt had a successful career, six hit songs in 20 years does not seem to quite meet the criteria of "very important to his field." His awards, while also indicating a successful career, are not particularly prestigious or unique. Member of the Order of the British Empire (most junior grade in the Order) currently has 100k living members. An Ivor Novello Award is given to 22 composers per year in one country, so is also very broad. Frankly, if awards like these are the bar for being posted, we will have a dozen musicians a year just from the UK. Mamyles (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support You Sexy Thing is a well known hit, even to people born after it was written. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose one number one hit in the UK, and a number 2 as a solo artist. Neither top of nor influential in field. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Chart placings are not everything. As I indicated above, if you go for the field of British soul music, then he is certainly important - probably the best known and most commercially successful British soul singer of the late 70s and early 80s. Definitely, to say he was not influential is completely wrong. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, at the point I am writing this, his huge influence has exactly zero bytes of text at British soul. I'm familiar with the song, but one-hit-wonders are not commonly RD-level important, unless for other reasons.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He's not a one-hit wonder. According to the article, Hot Chocolate had 14 top ten singles in the UK and 3 in the US. According to this source, they "created" British soul. On page 1! Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and for that type of article it's often just people writing about their own record collections.
 * On the other hand, he was a Tory and it's election day, so maybe I should just let the nomination drown. Formerip (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yay! Come on Cameron. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean to say you are hoping for another coalition? Formerip (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One certainly is, isn't one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why my support is based on significantly establishing his importance better. I know OBE's can sometimes be trivial but I really don't think that's the case here, WP's article just needs to be better established before ITN posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jim Wright

 * Support: Quick glance shows that there are no problems with unsourced material in this article. On the subject himself, being Speaker of the House is a high position, even though he was only briefly in it. He was house majority leader for a full decade of his 35 years in Congress, which is a high role in American politics. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose an out-of-office politician of this rank who died of old age would never be nominated if he were from Japan, Brazil or Indonesia. There's no striking accomplishment as speaker that would justify this, it's just systemic bias. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose long-serving politician gets old and dies. Ten a penny I'm afraid, not seeing any reason at all why this individual rises to the level of RD notability.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support was a very prominent American politician, could be considered at or near the top of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mid-level US politician is low-level importance worldwide. --M ASEM (t) 19:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Speaker of the House meant he was at one time #3 in political power and office at one time. Resigned due to an ugly controversy, helped promote the building of an airport. Honestly, I am STILL not sure how notable that makes him. Challenger l (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some U.S. speakers of the House would be notable enough for inclusion. A person's job should never exclude them specifically for ITN.  However, this speaker of the House had minimal impact on the national or international political scene.  He's not Tip O'Neil or Newt Gingrich; perhaps if he lasted in office longer he would have been more politically significant.  He wasn't.  His most famous act was sponsoring a bill to give some extra business to his cronies.  Meh.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like what you're saying is that even as corrupt politicians go, he wasn't much. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than the obvious redundancy in your statement, yeah, pretty much. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Groucho, who as a panelist on What's My Line? once asked a contestant, "Are you a corrupt politican? Am I being redundant?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. If he had been Speaker for longer, or accomplished something significant during his term, I would support, but he had little effect on the House or the nation. His scandal was relatively minor and he would be expected to promote an airport in his district or state. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I don't accept that he was an unimportant Speaker - for instance, he played a major role in opposing the Reagan Administration's policy on Nicaragua and brokering a peace agreement there that led to democratic elections. I think he clearly meets the criterion of having had a significant impact on his country or region. Neljack (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose known for the Wright Amendment promoting Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in the nomination already implies that he wasn't important enough for RD. With even some former prime ministers from other countries not considered important enough for RD, it is hard to make the case that 2.5 years as leader of parliament are enough. major role in opposing the Reagan Administration's policy on Nicaragua - everyone who serves a few years as minister or speaker of parliament in any country is supposed to have a major role in something. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is 6 to 4 against, and stale; I haven't even seen it in the US news. Given the sexual-assualt scandal with his daughter's brother-in-law is even longer than the section on his speakership, I suggest an univolved editor close this.  His being third in suggestion for the presidency (assuming the president and vice president both choked to death on a lunchtime lie ) was rather a nasty joke. μηδείς (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Salman Khan sentenced

 * Support per nom. Important news with international coverage. -  Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  13:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is effectively celebrity news, just one from India, not the United States or UK. The case is otherwise nothing out of the ordinary. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Interesting downfall of a popular actor. However, I agree that it is closer to tabloid news than an event of note, internationally or nationally. Worth being in the current events portal, but not quite to the level of ITN. Mamyles (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose might make an interesting DYK, but certainly not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose basically per Mamyles' reasoning. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Earlier this year we considered the sentencing of Aaron Hernandez as not a leading story. However, Mr Khan is a marquee name in his billion-dollar industry, compared to Hernandez's supporting name in his. As I'm new to this game, have we ever posted on a Hollywood actor being jailed for five years? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouls support if this were first-degree murder as in the Hernandez case, but it wasn't. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Murder of Farkhunda trial

 * Very interesting, support - judging by the society in that country, the fact that MEN have been sentenced to DEATH for the murder of a WOMAN is significant. With the unfounded allegations on which she was spitefully lynched, this is the equivalent of 1950s KKK members being sentenced to death for killing a black man on the spurious allegation he whistled at a white woman. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It is only very interesting for people like you who don't know anything about Afghanistan. Half a year ago 5 men were hanged for raping a woman. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a decision of a primary court, that is by law not a final decision. The defendants have the right to have their case heard at an appeals court. And after that they might even ask the Supreme Court whether the rulings of the lower courts were according to the law. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the merits of this case, but practice here is to post a legal case upon conviction, not when all appeals have been exhausted. The reversal of a conviction in a noteworthy case often is noteworthy itself. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why it is likely to be overturned is the same it is unusual for cases to be decided so quickly in Afghanistan that was cited as rationale for posting it to ITN - it was a rushed trial. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like original research and crystal ball-gazing, LoveToLondon. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, far more relevant to ITN than all the sports articles that currently dominate it. This is ten thousand times more important than our current drivel about snooker, soccer, boxing, and horse racing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means make some suggestions at WT:ITNR about removing the "current drivel", this isn't really the place to complain about other things existing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reluctantly, but this looks like a very messy trial that no-one has been satisfied by. It doesn't seem to be either a legal landmark or a resolution of the story. Formerip (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per FormerIP. Not seeing anything massively groundbreaking/world-impacting here. The Almightey Drill's point on this being a case of men being sentenced to death for killing a woman in a country where women have sub-standard rights is interesting, but I don't think that this is as groundbreaking as it seems. --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the fact that no one has been satisfied with all the verdicts in such a large trial has nothing to do with the noteworthiness of the trial and verdict, which seems an important human right story from a place that used to user soccer fields for mass executions. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mark Twain's lost works

 * Strong support as interesting news and notable discovery of works form a popular writer. I remember that last time we posted a news on a similar discovery in literature was Andersen's lost fairy tale few years ago, while we regularly post discoveries related to other arts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – According to AP, it's "a collection of dispatches written by Mark Twain when (he) was a young newsman," in 1865-66. That was before Twain (Sam Clemens) was accomplished as an author (Tom Sawyer, 1876; Huckleberry Finn, 1884). Might be prudent to await more info re whether they can legitimately be described as literary "works." Sca (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no article for it, only two sentenced put to a place where they don't belong. It needs an own article like the one for the already mentioned The Tallow Candle before it can be posted to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral Article looks good, no opinion whether it significant enough for ITN or too obscure. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I would strongly suggest that a better link target be found. If the letters themselves are notable as a whole, ala Silence Dogood, then that should be the article, then otherwise is should be Mark Twain. Yet unsure if this is ITN or not otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Asked to recomment on the creation of the article, I would like to see what the significance is of these letters (Beyond that Twain wrote them, that's obvious - but like, the importance of the discovery or the like). I know a good evaluation will take some time to come but even a comment or two on Twain historians/literature experts to say "Hey, this is an amazing find!" would help. --M ASEM (t) 18:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose target article is very weak, poorly referenced and notes this "notable discovery" in a few words in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment it sounds like a fascinating storyline, but we need it to have it's own article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The correct article section for an update would be Mark Twain in Nevada. The section is extensive enough already (with only pre-existing material) that it could certainly be split (and I might do so later today).  To be clear, what has been rediscovered here are some of Twain's writings from when he worked as a newspaper correspondent.  Although many of his stories (some are known fiction, while others are real events) were already known, some had been lost in a fire at the newspaper's archive.  These have now been recovered by coming the archives of other newspapers that republished them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean combing, Thaddeus, as in comb-and-paper? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, an unfortunate typo there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AP says they're from his San Francisco days. Sca (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The first story I read on the letters, didn't make that clear. However, the description above of the recovered writing is still accurate - Twain continued to write for the Territorial Enterprise after he moved to San Fran.  It does mean that splitting is essential though.  It still makes sense to cover it with his other Territorial Enterprise stories, but not as part of his Nevada days article. See . --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have created a new article on Twain's newspaper days, Mark Twain at the Territorial Enterprise, and updated with the new info. Would, , , , &  kindly take another look and reasses.  Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support on notability BTW - significant find relating to one of the greatest American writers of all time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on notability 110 2,000 word columns showing Twain's distinctive style early in his career is nothing to sneeze at. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but from a literary perspective still seems rather obscure to me. Sca (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How could a lost work not be obscure? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support this is almost too obscure, but I think it's significant enough for ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted per lack of opposition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD:Grace Lee Whitney

 * Oppose - Not a leader in the entertainment field. --M ASEM (t) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, oppose on notability, seems like a reasonably identifiable individual but not really up there with the leaders in acting. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm a huge trekkie but this article doesn't meet the bar for FC.  If it were one of the seven core cast members, sure, but not for a supporting character with no other major credits.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 05:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gamaliel. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm also a trekkie but she does not meet any of the RD criteria at all.  This isn't the Star Trek wiki. 331dot (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 World Snooker Championship

 * Support with article update: The championship article is well sourced and updated, but there's parts of Bingham's article devoid of sourcing which is a nogo for BLP on front. But should be fixable. --M ASEM (t) 01:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Notability is there. Quality is close, as Masem said. Just a few more citations needed in Bingham's career & statistics sections. Mamyles (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've thrown a few more citations into the early career. If we need cites on the stats I will ask a regular/expert because snooker is not my magnum opus here &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice work - career section is now fully sourced. I'm not an expert at sports statistics sourcing either, but would imagine that it could be as simple as referencing any popular statistics-focused sports website. Like here. Mamyles (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support championship article in good shape; we don't normally bold to name of the winner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If so, then please edit the blurb. We don't want to be putting this on hold to update an article which doesn't require updating &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The winner's article is not so far off and I think Almighty Drill's additions are sufficient now for posting of that too. It would be a different situation if it was nearly all unsourced or the like. --M ASEM (t) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom - I was going to query why this event wasn't in ITN/R, but then found it under cue sports rather than snooker. &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. Since this is the top item now, feel free to add the photo. --Tone 13:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Josh Ozersky

 * Support Summer of Love, G. K. Chesterton, Rutgers, NYU, Notre Dame, Tikkun, Meatopia?  This guy was a bit more than a food critic. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, over 60 people or institutions receive a James Beard Foundation Award every year, and his was shared. No evidence presented that he was on the top of any particular field, seems more like a case of many irons in the fire. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You realize that many irons in the fire argues in favor (when compared to one iron in the fire) of his nomination? To are admiting he was important in more than one field. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it just means he does not fit the RD criteria. He barely deserves an article. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, "barely"? So only seven sections and only 21 sources?  You won't post an AfD, you just want us to act as this article had been deleted?  Clever. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is not only that many receive this award, it is also an US-only award. He was a journalist and blog writer, and not even in the narrow field of food media there there is any indication that he was considered to be the best in the world. LoveToLondon (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "An US only award"? Should we complain LovetoLondon's native language isn't English?  No, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive" is more than enough by which to weigh his contribution. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Given that "everyone's a critic" there are likely only a handful of food critics that are not chefs that would ever be ITN, just as there are only a handful of film and book reviewers that would merit the same. --M ASEM (t) 05:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ozersky was a celebrated writer as a writer, and he organized his food events in London, England and San Antonio, Texas, to the praise of the New York Times and the Huffington Post. Rather than assert there are more qualified writers, please name those more qualified writers and link to them. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Who? Meh. Seriously though, not important enough for RD. This is just someone with an article who died. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Curtis Culwell Center attack

 * Oppose - Justified or not, it's just another police shooting in the USA.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose since the terrorist attack was thwarted, it's not really major news. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unfortunately, a typical gun-based crime in the US, and not going to have a long-term impact yet. --M ASEM (t) 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose people shot to death in America. It happens every day.  This one was slightly more interesting, but yet not that much more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mellowed Fillmore; while not just "another police shooting"; the attack was thwarted without injuring any innocent people; and it was not entirely unexpected given the security that was present and the views of those putting on the event. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Burundian protests

 * Comment Note that this was nominated previously but with no article in place (presently at bottom of this page, but will likely be in archives soon). --M ASEM (t) 17:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support given improvements to the article. Reports of 10 dead in protests against president seeking illegal third term, and use of force sanctioned by current military ruler, high government officials fleeing the country. [text was revised earlier today from original support pending μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)] μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is piss poor at the moment...it doesn't deal with the protests earlier than the week. However, in theory, it is a good start. Also, note, the military made a statement today that contradicted what Nkurunziza's government figures said (interior minister?). Its certainly picking up a la Burkina Faso sometime ago (over the same reasons).120.62.13.31 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support needs expansion about the early phases of the protest. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose notability, and strong oppose article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (needs significant expansion), weak oppose on notability (subject to change). Ten dead is not an overwhelming number, especially for an African country in a historically unstable and violent neighborhood, but if the protests escalate to a civil uprising or some sort of ethnic strife, or many more are killed, I'd be inclined to reconsider. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support with the new article improvements. I'm still not convinced this outbreak of violence is all that unusual, considering Burundi's place on the globe, but the situation seems to only be escalating there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic as it is, 10 casualties is really not that much for a riot in an unstable country. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Three more today...it is far from over...The army is also at odds with the police.120.62.31.194 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It all seems somewhat of a minor scuffle I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Burkina Faso? The deaths weren't sky high there either. Pity we'll miss it when the coup/resignation/ouster happens...120.62.31.194 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, if a coup happens, I'm sure it'll be featured here!! in the meantime this is all minor rumblings. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BF was posted...?120.62.31.194 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call protests which have forced over 25,000 people to flee their country "minor scuffles" or "rumblings".Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This is major event in a country that rarely (if ever) appears on the home page. It has all the makings of a revolution and we posted similar events like the 2014 Burkinabé uprising and 2015 Congolese protests. The death toll (which increases day by day and is comparable to the above mentioned protests) has nothing to do with the significance of the event. If the horse who won this year's Kentucky Derby is more significant than thousands of people in Burundi demanding political reform then I'm lost for words.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a crystal ball effect to assume it will be a revolution because of protests now. It could be, and when that happens, I'm pretty confident it will be ITN and possibly ongoing if it is violent. Right now, this is people reacting in a manner not inconsistent with the usual events in that areas of the world (for better or worse). --M ASEM (t) 14:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What is not consistent with "the usual events in that areas of the world"? ITN has at various times (and sometimes together) had Syria, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria for the Islamists activities...how is a protest that is both violent and ongoing with the further recent BF precedent different? Furthermore, how are sports championships then not "the usual events in that areas of the world"? Still more, how are elections then not "the usual events in that areas of the world"?120.62.26.167 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Given these improvements opposes should reconsider their votes. The article shows much more in the news (vice president of the election comittee has fled the country amidst death threats) than just 10 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 11:18, May 5, 2015‎
 * I've looked again, and the article quality is still poor that doesn't lead me to see the importance here, but that's not to say that that can't be fixed. Particularily, reading the Background section, there's no narrative logic flow here; it should be better explained if the revolt is due to a already poorly-seen president trying to keep his power grasp by running a 3rd term even if against their constitution (which sounds like it is the case) or another reason. Basically for purposes of article quality leading to importance, we need better explanation of why this revolt is different and that might need to be explaning what the deal is with the current president and why looking for a 3rd term is angering the citizens. --M ASEM  (t) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't phrase it as if it were somehow ITN policy. There's no requirement that we explain how this hurricane or mass murder is "different" before they are posted. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose on notability and weak oppose on quality. Better than before, but not good enough.  Clearly we have no such thing as an ITN policy, but nevertheless, the article is lacking, poor quality, not something we should be putting onto our main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready The consensus of commenting editors is in support (two to one even taking into account the nominator voted without saying "as nominator") and the article is hugely updated, much larger than necessary for a new article by ITN standards, and is untagged. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - It is a close call on both event notability and article quality, but based on the above discussion there appears to be a (weak) consensus that both are within minimum ITN standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014–15 Premier League

 * Support on article improvements Definitely going to need some prose to support all those tables. --M ASEM (t) 15:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Begrudgingly support Even as a Brit and a Chelsea fan I see no reason why only the Premier League is on recurring when the German and Spanish teams repeatedly whip our arses in European competitions, have equal support on all the continents and even have bigger crowds. But a recurring is a recurring &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pending prose expansion, support per ITN/R. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Better to wait till the official end and then possible combine it with the FA Cup.120.62.13.31 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when article updated, no need to wait until the official end, it's not going to change anything. Article needs to be updated to include the fact that Chelsea are champions mind you!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine sporting fixture. The people who care about this (fans) already know the result. Andrew D. (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ However much I agree that this is too far for ITN's coverage of sport (a national rather than international competition), opposing it on that basis is moot as this competition is (and again, I oppose how it is) a recurring item on WP:ITN/R &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew is well known for his "special" and particular perspective on things, nothing to take too seriously! Of course, the result of many hundreds of football matches is not "routine sporting fixture".  He knows that, and so do we all, but we should allow him his two seconds of ITN fame. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. There seems to be way too much sport at ITN and it seems to be crowding out more important news.  Sport is essentially unimportant because the nature of the fixtures is that someone always wins.  Only fans care who wins/loses and they already follow the events closely enough that they don't need us to tell them. Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It can change, but this is not the place for such a discussion... Nothing is being "crowded out" - we routinely have stories over 7 days old on Template:ITN.  If there are notable stories worth posting that aren't making it on the template, it is due to some combination of not being nominated, no one doing the necessary article work, or failure to convince people the story is important here - not due to sports being posted.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "only fans care who wins/loses"; that is the case with most nominations of any type of event, that only the people involved care about it. Very little would be posted if worldwide caring of an event was required. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * what is being crowded out? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added some text on the league results. Its not the most expansive update ever, but I'd say the article is probably ready.  The downside of posted when the championship is clinched is you can't write prose on the scoring and other statistical titles, or on the finishes of the other teams since their places are still to be determined. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, the article is a little table-heavy word-light, but it describes the main story ahead of the season finishing proper. Stephen 01:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Kentucky Derby

 * Support pending winner/article updates - As long as the article gets in the state that the 2014 race is in, this should be fine. I do recommend stripping the redlinks from the table at the current time, as, barring the winning horse and any special circumstances, the rest are likely unnotable and would never have articles. --M ASEM (t) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so, more of the other horses may very likely go on to blue links if they have significant wins as older horses. Depends on the year. (Case in point: Mucho Macho Man, 3rd in 2011 Derby, grew up, won the very major 2013 Breeders' Cup Classic)
 * In principle, I would say all KY Derby entrant are notable (similar to say the Olympics for humans). Whether someone ever writes the articles is another matter, of course. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In principle, perhaps, but looking back at the past race results, only 4-6 horses of each field actually have articles, and the rest are not linked at all. --M ASEM (t) 06:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The trick is which 4-6, sigh... and having done it the other way around - linking to a dozen articles where the horse is mentioned but without a link - meh, no fun! ;) Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support assuming the Triple Crown race winners are routinely reported here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Derby is, see ITN/R. Triple Crown could be if we ever have another horse win all three races (waiting... 36 years...)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as ITN/R. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R, and article looks to be in good shape. Quite a bit of excitement over American Pharaoh as a potential Triple Crown contender, but isn't that what they always say? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose horse is unlikely to ever ascend to the royal throne. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ↑sarcasm. Support I guess, ITN/R, even though I despise horse racing. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not alone. Sca (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on article quality. People above do not seem to have assessed the article.  There's basically no prose in the article aside from the announcement of the win.  This article should have at least the amount of "race description" as there is at 2014 Kentucky Derby.  If we took out the table, this would be a stub.  We can't post this kind of article on the main page.  The second after it is fixed, we can post this.  But if anyone who actually wants to see this on the main page would actually add some prose describing the race itself, that would speed the process along.  I pray that whatever admin posts this actually reads the article and makes a decision based on what will showcase quality material at Wikipedia.  As of me writing this now, we don't yet have this.  When I awake in the morning, if this should have been posted, I would hope the article would have been fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article about the winning horse, American Pharoah, is brief but thorough, and better referenced. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: We are getting the 2015 Derby article up to speed now.   - we should be able to run it soon and I'm online for a bit longer and can make further tweaks.  That said, if the group wants to run the American Pharoah article in the alternative, no objection from me.    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Kentucky Derby article is up to ITN standards now; marking ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the update w/ sourcing is in place to post. --M ASEM (t) 15:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, Masem. Now do we have to ping someone to post it?   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted good work updaters! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A horse race!? Just routine sports. Andrew D. (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having a good evening Andrew? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Maya Plisetskaya

 * Support Top of her field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Importance and article quality is good to go. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per masem.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Legendary dancer. Light show (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready article is well written and referenced, list of honors does not seem to be a problem. (Before my niece was old enough to talk she imitated Plisetskaya's dancing) μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The list should be okay. All but 4-5 are blue links so confirmable on those pages, and there's a general ref ( a who's who book on influential women) which I can see from Google Books preview covers them. --M ASEM (t) 19:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking that out. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment posted in under one hour, could we just please take some time to allow further comments, not necessarily in this case, but generally? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So What?, in cases with such near unanimous support whats wrong with it? Its better to keep ITN updated then have weeks old articles, especially when there is such support (quite rare that is). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So we generally have a reasonable period of time to allow editors from around the English-speaking world to contribute. After all, this is English language Wikipedia.  No harm here, but we should be cautious about doing this kind of lightning quick promotions as they have previously resulted in upset.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What quality issues with this article do you feel merit taking it off the main page? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from the lack of citations and unreferenced quotes? And Jayron, cool your jets, I never said take it off the main page, I just asked why we're now posting in sub-one-hour timeframes.  You've obviously got some energy at the moment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you hoping to accomplish with the objection in this section if you don't feel this article doesn't belong on the main page? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That you properly check the quality of the items you post, and that you stop posting things within an hour, to allow a rounded view of English speaking editors, to be obtained. Do you need any more information, or is that clear enough?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Self-evidently, this one article was checked for quality, because even you can't find a reason to pull it. General procedures should be discussed at WT:ITN if you wish to make changes to how things operate here.  Even you admit this one article has no reason not to be on the main page, so it must have been sufficiently checked for quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want to embarrass you yet again by asking you to pull your own poor decision. Fix your own issues, and don't make such poor judgements again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no decision to post this. I neither supported it nor posted it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Don't not post this sort of thing again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, we have a Russian entertainer being commented on at the middle of the day for more Western/English parts of the world (not Russia), so I think the fact there was fair support for that from outside the locale of the RD shows the strength of importance. Additionally, article quality was addressed by at least two !votes (including me), and no I didn't see any lack of citations - there was one quote that ended a para right before leading into a blockquote with a source on that, which is fine. --M ASEM (t) 21:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look again. Closely.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I went back to the version just before her death was added here just to make sure and I only see one quote that is uncited but in that specific case that the immediate source before that sentence supports that and can be easily moved or restated. It is far from a problem. --M ASEM  (t) 23:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb I think her notability even crosses the line for posting a blurb as she was definitely known and greatly admired outside her field. The article is also in very good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would not be opposed to a blurb, "Russian ballerina Maya Plisetskaya dies at the age of 89." --M ASEM (t) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support a blurb if we have a free picture of her. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This one is in the Commons. --Light show (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest File:Maya_Plisetskaya_-_Quixote.jpg showcasing her in motion. --M ASEM (t) 18:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They both have their advantages. It's either one of them or Mayweather. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's implicitly four supports for a blurb and photo, the other support voters,, and  and others editors should comment. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and no support for blurbs elsewhere other than Kiril. The nomination clearly states it's for RD, and nowhere do I see any indication that four people support a photo, implicitly or otherwise.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguably the nominator is only one !vote among all others, so if everyone else suggests a blurb while the nom only wanted an RD, there's no reason not to give a blurb. But I do agree that we've not reached enough consensus to call this support for a blurb yet. --M ASEM (t) 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb: I'm on the record as saying death blurbs should be reserved for people whose death directly affects a significant number of people (for example, a head of state or head of government, or an iconic leader a la Mandela or Havel) or is very unusual and unexpected (an astronaut or cosmonaut dying while in space, for example), and my opinion here is no different. Plisetskaya was a very recognizable and influential ballerina, and RD is absolutely deserved and justified, but I don't think it rises to the level of a blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu just wrote my thoughts. I also doubted of blurb, so nominated as RD. Brandmeistertalk  09:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mayweather vs. Pacquiao

 * Weak Support The number of titles on the line here make this more uncommon than other matches, and would be as close to a championship match as we could expect from the sport. Obviously, wait until the match is completed and some discussion of the event is possible and included, but the article's in tentatively good starting shape. --M ASEM (t) 14:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once finished and updated: Lots of world titles on the line for this fight and close coverage throughout the world. I don't know enough about boxing to know if this was hyperbole, but BBC News said it will be the fight with the most at stake since the Rumble in the Jungle &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on notability - This is being called the fight of the century and I don't really think that is hyperbole. It would be an embarrassment if ITN didn't post it, although there was no need to nominate 12 hours ahead of the fight.  Obiously the fight will need to take place and the article brought up to quality standards before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose low quality article with massive swathes of quotes without citation. Once fixed it may be re-considered for inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say quotes, do you refer to the boxers and their managers, or to unparaphrased material from the news media? Abductive  (reasoning) 03:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all the quotes in the article when TRM commented were uncited but I added a bunch of refs so I think I covered everything at this point on that end.  Spencer T♦ C 06:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look like the oteh rkind of "unattributed quote" (i.e. copyvio) is an issue as well: --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits(this fight has been talked about for a long time even outside of boxing) but we obviously need to wait until it is over so an adequate update can be made. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if Pacquaio wins, otherwise Oppose giving any further notability to an exponent of domestic violence. No,this is not a joke. If only it were. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your ITN reasoning is questionable, but your heart is in the right place 100 percent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending the end of the fight. We are not here to right great wrongs. This event clearly merits a posting, regardless of who wins. Of course, article quality should be up to snuff first. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait to announce the winner, and add a blurb with the total made on Pay Per View if it's a world record - which it is expected to be.-- Aronzak (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed: A better angle to post what was, by all accounts, a pretty lackluster fight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, a full description of the fight itself (i.e. roughly a round-by-round recap) will be required before we post. I'm pretty busy tomorrow, so hopefully someone can get to it before I have some free time late Sunday. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment wow, for such massive interest prior to this fight, even a discussion a few weeks back on if this was worth nominating, not one person who is actually interested in this has bothered to update the article to provide a description of, what I'm led to believe, was an appallingly turgid affair. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And from what I've seen on social media (I didn't watch it), there was a LOT of commentary about the fight itself (not any pre-match issues), and that should be included before this can be posted. --M ASEM (t) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This a very common phenomenon with most sporting events - people are excited to update the article ahead of the event, but once it happens everyone is burnt out or something. Looks like it will fall to me to update (even though I care zip about boxing), which I will get on in a few hours after I have dinner.  Theer certainly are an abundance of available sources to do the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pacquiao was reported to be the people's choice, just like Ali, while Mayweather was bookmakers' favorite. I think that affected the editorial mood. Brandmeistertalk  21:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - The lack of post-match updates suggests what the sports reporters are saying - that this so-called "fight of the century" was a dud. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing we can be sure of - Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana will be well-known long after this worthless boxing match is forgotten. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Revenue-wise this was a huge fight, and there was a ridiculously massive menagerie of A-list celebrities in attendance, but I think we'd be well-advised to use discretion here considering that this boxing match has been widely considered a flop-and-a-half.--WaltCip (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - Is The Ring title important enough to be mentioned? My knowledge of boxing is next to nil, but I've only ever heard of the first three. Also, support. Even if the fight was a dud, I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt because we pretty much never post boxing. Of course it didn't live up to the hype; that was an impossible task. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think your query or your support is important. The fight description, as far as I can tell, hasn't been worked on for 36 hours.  This isn't going anywhere near the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As always, I support or oppose based on overall importance - article quality can change, while importance isn't fixable. Big picture. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ready - As promised (only a little late), I have thoroughly updated the article, adding an extensive description of the fight and reaction. I have fixed the copyright and other issues with the pre-existing article as well.  Unless there are new, specific quality objections I think we are ready (consensus on notability is clear).  I also added an alt, reflecting the $$$$ instead of the titles. Either is fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason it's written in mixed tenses? Good work, but it needs to be copyedited.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is no reason other than my failure to copyedit my own writing. Now fixed (all past tense). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update looks good and ready to go, for me. The tenses could be fixed as TRM mentioned but that's definitely where having it ITN can get a few more eyes to help out. --M ASEM (t) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well no, it's not up to us to post poor quality updates, fix the tenses and we could be in with a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's also worth noting we're not a sports ticker so phrases like "showed poise" and "in a late flurry of action that energizes the crowd" and "Pacquiao unsuccessfully attempted to attack with Mayweather mostly looks to avoid his punches" (not English) and "from Pacquiao's big hit" etc etc etc don't belong in an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the tense of "looks" (before seeing this comment) and removed the "poise" bit. Not really sure what you mean by the others.  "Big" just means powerful or significant, judgement of which is used by judges to score the round.  Do you want the adjective changed?  The crowd reaction is not super important, but I'm not sure what harm including it does.  Is removing it what you wanted or something else? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue at all with your update, it should read like an encyclopedia and not a sports ticker, that is all. Pretty straightforward.  Happy to post as-is because it's causing me a migraine... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Boxing will do that, hehe. But in all seriousness, it is a bit hard to know how to improve one's own writing without specific feedback. Thanks for your help... It seems sports updates will usually fall to me, as few competent people like to do them. As such, I welcome comments (at my talk page is probably best) on what people like/don't like about my sports writing.  I mean "be encyclopedic" is a valid comment, but I am always trying to be that, so my failures are not apparent to me.  From this year: 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game, 2014–15 EuroLeague Women, 2015 Boston Marathon, 2015 London Marathon, 2015 Kentucky Derby and this article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a couple, but yes, your update is WAY good, just not good enough for my spectacles. But don't let that make you think I don't appreciate the fact you deal with these bastard nominations when all the other gobshites around here just bitch.  You're one of the few who keeps this place open and alive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Non-event. The Periscope aspect seems novel but is bigger than this one event.  And promoting masculine sports like boxing and football while snubbing baby Princess Charlotte seems to be blatant gender bias contrary to the general weight given to these events by mainstream media. Andrew D. (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Princess is not being "snubbed" because she is female; the fact that she will likely not take the throne led to the consensus that her birth did not merit posting. The hundreds of millions involved in this fight would belie your claim of a "non-event". (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support post already --Johnsemlak (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Royal baby
Neutral: I personally am royalist, but that shouldn't cloud my judgement on Wikipedia. This is obviously something which is all over the news (at least in the UK where I live), but it doesn't match the birth of George as he was a direct heir to the throne. This girl will only ever be the monarch if something tragic happens to George. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of interest: Was George posted here? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. --M ASEM (t) 13:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Insightful discussion. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Since she will in all probability not become queen, this seems too much like consequence-free celebrity news, which I don't think ITN should feature. Thue (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support most definitely in the news, a truly global phenomenon reported throughout the known universe by reliable sources, and of interest to hundreds of millions of people, unlike many of the parochial inconsequential American stories we trot out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny. I consider this to be parochial to Britain. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, and the 2.3 billion members of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly none of whom care. Many of our nations retain ties to the British Crown merely out of a sense of tradition, not because British affairs really matter to us. Resolute 23:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose If we went by this definition of "in the news", all sorts of celebrity baby stories, Beiber, and the Kardashians would become fair game. Just because it's "in the news" doesn't make it ITN-worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To like the royals to Bieber etc is just misleading. Biebers future daughter/son will not stand a chance to become a king or queen of a country. This daughter could potentially become the next Queen of the UK. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite so, as I said, it's being reported in RS across the globe. Celebrity baby stories, Beiber (who he?) and the Kardashians are not reported globally by RS, just crap outlets.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You sure Le Monde wouldn't run a story on Kim Kardashian and North West (http://www.lemonde.fr/mode/article/2014/03/24/anna-wintour-defend-la-starlette-kim-kardashian_4388518_1383317.html) ? Or the Sydney Morning Herald ? Garbage WP:CRUFT stories get reported in pretty much every outlet. The princess is not in line for the throne, making it another celebrity baby, with a royal angle. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the daughter is in line for the throne. If you dont know the facts, do not speak them.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - A royal baby especially in onde of the biggest monarchys in the world is notable. She is fourth in line for the throne and is a possible future queen if (god forbids) something terrible happens in the royal family.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can report coronations etc, but not this. Jehochman Talk 16:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides your slightly bizarre personal opinion, would you be good enough to tell us which parts of the criteria this fails? Reminder, the purpose 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, To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events, To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them, To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource."  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "quality Wikipedia content" which this article is certainly not - 5 paragraphs and the second says "drew international media coverage... and criticism that the level of attention was unwarranted" - a clear sign that parts of the media reporting and the article itself are WP:CRUFT.-- Aronzak (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - A royal baby of the greatest monarchy and of a kingdom with no sunset. Reliable and well cited, much predicted and gambled. ITN worthy..-The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength  16:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Whose news is it in? Of a global population of 7.2 billion, an estimated 1.2 billion speak English as a first or second language – 17 percent of world population. What proportion would be interested in the British royals? Maybe half? Sca (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We post Cricket though it is of interest of less than half of that.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's another issue. Sca (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support when ready. Unlikely we'll have another royals story until Charles accedes or Harry Marries.  Of great interest to the anglosphere, and the essence of what one would want to see in an encyclopedia, and what readers will come here looking for. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and has no place for such dribble as this. If she is crowned for some odd and extraordinary reason, I imagine that might be worth posting. Her mere birth is a nothingness. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I nominated this. I understand people who have your opinion. But if that is consensus, then this category should not be called In the news, but something more neutral such as What is happening. As it stands now, the In the news section hardly features anything that is actually in the news... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's curious that the reliable sources which we don't consider tabloid (e.g. BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc etc) are all reporting this.  Yet with our stuffy snobbishness, we deem it gutter trash.  How odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, a sampling of a half-dozen European WPs finds none listing it in their ITNs. Sca (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The day we start following other WPs, such as the awful de.wiki, we might as well pack it in here, turn off the lights and go home. Pointless comparison.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevant to question of wider significance. Sca (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely Sca. When it comes down to it, the English ITN is for posting things that are in the news in ENGLISH speaking countries. All you Americans seem to forget that England also speaks English, and this isn't the American wiki (or the German wiki). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Woman gives birth to a baby. Next.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak (and reluctant) Oppose I'm a monarchist but this might be straining things a bit. The new princess is unlikely to succeed to the throne. Do we post the births of non-heirs from other royal houses? That aside I am delighted by the news. May God grant Her Royal Highness and the happy parents many years! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As yours is one of the better reasoned opposes, let me say the premise implies we would not have posted Harry's birth either, which seems a bit odd. I think child of the presumed heir (rather than 4th in line) meets the threshold. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  – Nothing against Br. royals, but this Blessed Event lacks wider significance, IMO. Sca (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - last year, two babies were born that were in direct line of succession (i.e. next) on birth. We didn't post that. This baby is only 4th in line, which is even less notable. Complete non-story. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur that this doesn't rise to ITN level, but the failure to post last year's birth of a presumptive future king was a major failure at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - The child is fourth in line to the throne in 16 nations and number one headline for most news organisations, and is of huge public interest. Cantab12 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support We routinely report deaths, which is rather morbid, and so it provides good balance to report a notable birth too.  Currently, the bottom part of ITN has "Recent deaths: Ben E. King" with lots of wasted white space afterwards.  For this occasion, we might amend this to "Recent births and deaths:  A new princess; Ben E. King", with the princess's name being substituted when it is announced. Andrew D. (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post for the multitude of other countries' royal families changes to fourth in succession, or even 2nd or 3rd in succession. This has minimal cultural impact, and could be considered tabloid news. Mamyles (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There will be many newsworthy events in this girl's life. I think we should show restraint for now, and maybe post when she strangles her first fox cub or gets into Oxford without any GCSEs. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your opposition is both without foundation and disgusting, in equal part. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want to make any useful contributions, or just personal attacks TRM? -- Aronzak (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you must be able to see that FormerIP's comments is disgusting. That's not a personal attack, it's a personal observation.  Good try.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Pointing out an offensive comment is not a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if anyone is offended by my vote. I'd give you a shit to make up for it, but unfortunately it seems I couldn't. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's surprising, considering your composition. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever that's supposed to mean, please stop trying to communicate with me because I think I think you are an insufferable twat. Formerip (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm one up then, because I know that to be the true in your case! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, just stop. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * After you. After all, you're the one who has a serious issue here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose wow, people have nothing better to do than to salivate at the baby of some stay-at-home mom. Nergaal (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we tend to follow reliable sources like the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc etc, all of whom are reporting this news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM - Only when article quality is high and useful information is in Wikipedia. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's poor article quality? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with being a stay-at-home mom? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What are we, the press wing of UKIP? "Pregnant woman has routine birth" is not a "current event of wide interest". Mogism (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we tend to follow reliable sources like the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc etc, all of whom are reporting this news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM - Only when article quality is high and useful information is in Wikipedia. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's poor article quality? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As above, it's 5 paragraphs and the second says "drew international media coverage... and criticism that the level of attention was unwarranted" - a clear sign that parts of the media reporting and the article itself are WP:CRUFT. Especially the parts about how royalists were given pastries for lining up outside a hospital, and how royalists were happy at how many Twitter followers they got to follow a hospital and the terms they're using to describe themselves on Twitter. Reads like self-congratulatory navel gazing. Many women get acute morning sickness - and they usually don't get a whole paragraph on Wikipedia to describe the announcement. Queen Victoria and Elizabeth I of England do not devote time to the exact location, date and circumstances in which their mothers announced morning sickness - because the articles have actual, notable details to document. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Comparing the coverage of the birth of Queen Victoria's children to this is pure gold. I assume you're joking?  Honestly?  The morning sickness issue is well documented and serious, if you don't get it, or understand its significance, better that you don't comment on it.  Your oppose is worthless, but thanks for demonstrating it better in your responses than I can ever have hoped for.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Girl isn't named, baby not in succession order. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We posted George because he is directly in line for the throne, this child is not, assuming George has children in the future. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disappointed. We didn't post George "because he is directly in line for the throne", we posted George because there was consensus to do so.  You have lost sight of the purpose of ITN.  Please re-read the "purpose" section of the ITN criteria page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That was the rationale for the consensus. I am well aware of the purpose of ITN and have pointed that out in discussions, as well as my own nominations that have been rejected, in the past with little effect. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Out of everything pending on the page, it's the only thing I have actually heard in the news, and I currently live in America... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean in the U.S.? Sca (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merely being in the news has, rightly or wrongly, has never been sufficient for posting a nomination. A judgement is made by consensus as to importance. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, fair enough, a news item which is reported globally in reliable sources from Australia to Zanzibar is certainly something we should be keeping off the main page. That really underscores the purpose the ITN, don't you think?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to loosen up the criteria and purpose so that just being in the news is sufficient for posting, you know where the talk page is- though I thought this was not a news ticker. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. You tell me which particular ITN purpose this story fails to meet?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've explained my views on this matter, see no need to restate them, and I have little interest in debating this with you as I don't think we will agree. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the story meets all four purposes of ITN, yet we have a bunch of opposes, including your own, which mainly lie in the "tabloid oppose" camp, which is naturally completely incorrect since, as noted, this is being reported globally by the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc. Still, as long as six cops getting charged with murder finally made it (on the third attempt), Team USA are happy here.  The sooner we rename this to "American Wikipedia" the better, the more overt, the more honest it will all be.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would oppose posting if Michelle Obama had a child, or perhaps a better comparison would be Jill Biden. Global reporting has never been sufficient for posting; perhaps you forget that we weigh importance and notability. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, those comparisons are 100% bogus. After the next US election, those children would be 100% irrelevant, forever.  Right now, this child is 100% relevant to about 2.3 billion subjects, until her death and beyond.  But perhaps you forget that. And for your final quote "we weigh importance and notability", yep, the fourth in line to the throne of 2.3 billion subjects.  If that's not "important" and "notable", what is?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do we draw the line in terms of importance and notability? Fifth in line? Tenth?  This child will not always be fourth in line.  Please also demonstrate that all 2.3 billion subjects are interested in this news; I don't think republicans in the UK would find it interesting, nor would those in other nations who advocate removing the royal family as head of state. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not me making a claim of notability relating to position in line to the throne, it's you and your buddies. I'm just saying this is covered wholesale in most RS across the globe.  The anti-Brit brigade are doing their finest here to post a few insignificant cops accused of a murder and objecting to a global phenomenon in this Royal Family birth.  Like I said, we need to rename this to American Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia.   Your objection to this is insightful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not "anti-Brit", I am pro-weighing notability and importance. Please point out where it is written you get a supervote on that point.  I have no "buddies" on this issue, but there are others who agree. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing, but I hope you remember the above comment next March. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've finally lost it. Comparing the birth of this princess is in no way comparable to a crappy basketball tournament.  What will be remembered in two, five, ten years time?  I'm disappointed, but no longer surprised, in your position.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, with regards to your latter comment. Thanks for the chat. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you have no basis in fact or policy for your oppose, or your attempted comparison with a basketball game? Please continue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted my opinion which will be considered by any admins that review this. I decline to further debate this with you.  Thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect the tenor of most of the opposes calling this "tabloid" news as it is being covered by the Guardian and the NYT, and "INOLIKEIT" should be kept in mind by admins evaluating when to post this. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stating the fact that this child is not directly in line for the throne as a reason to oppose is not a "tabloid" argument; it is a weighing of importance and notability. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the fact is that that it is important and it is notable as noted by all the mainstream reliable sources like the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt, etc etc reporting on it on their main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Consensus was reached to post George because he is directly in the line of succession. This child is not. Calidum T&#124;C 20:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if only to counter editors who don't know "drivel" from "dribble". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we should start posting every royal birth. Prince George was a stronger case, since he was in the direct line of succession. I simply don't think this news meets the significance requirement in the criteria, particularly considering that this princess will probably never be Queen. Neljack (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - An interesting and noteworthy story, but without any wider contextual merit. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not a future heir by order of birth, and if she ends up being a future heir through some unfortunate event, that can be posted to ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fourth in line, Vine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even here in Britain most people couldn't care less. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I'm English. Previous one, yeah, heir to the throne and all that.  This one?  Nah. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want people to really think about this. To be on ITN it must satisfy a few criteria, article must be up to date and sources, topic must be making headlines, and the news must be verifiable. So why are people opposing it? Because we should maybe post when she strangles her first fox cub or gets into Oxford without any GCSEs or people couldn't care less (obviously false) or because it is an interesting, noteworthy story (how is this an oppose). Can we please remember what ITN is, this isn't a place to tell us you don't like it, or that its not in the news because she is not first in like to the throne. It is in the news, and it is making headlines, and it is definitely noteworthy. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's "importance" here. Recognizing that the British Royal Family are treated as celebrities (remember Princess Di), this being their second child is not really a news item but more like celebrity gossip. We definitely want to avoid this type of story appearing at ITN. --M ASEM (t) 00:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- Maybe wait until she's been named. Widely reported. The UK is the largest European monarchy left and probably the world's best known. She's also --now-- the first female in line for the throne; we need to get more women on the front page, no matter their age. Also, the amount of "I don't like monarchy, so no" votes here are laughable. Prince George's nomination returned the same type of responses. I don't watch/care-for horse racing, but I won't oppose the 2015 Kentucky Derby nomination. In regard to "most people don't care", most of the people featured in "Recent Deaths" are unknown and mean nothing to most people. --Inops (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No offense, but I've never seen Luxembourgian royal babies becoming world headlines. Same for other babies from other non-English regions, like The Netherlands and Spain. Perhaps we can post a royal baby in the Children of Men-universe. But in this universe, I wonder if we can feature news story of a baby from seemingly-infertile royal couple. --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not our place to question why some stories make it into the news and some don't. If you want to change it, go into journalism and fight for more quality. But as long as stuff like this is in the news, in belongs into WP's ITN. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you're the nominator, how will you be able to change the majority's minds? By rebutting every person's comments? --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not my goal to change anyone's mind. As I mentioned when I nominated it, I was very well aware it would fail. I am actually surprised by the amount of supporters. The reason I nominated it was because I wanted to re-start the discussion over what we consider newsworthy here. And there are some astonishing comments here. The most ridiculous came from Muboshgu, who wrote: Just because it's "in the news" doesn't make it ITN-worthy. WHAT?? Please, if you don't want to post what is in the news then re-name the category!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose baby is unlikely to ever ascend to the throne. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when was this a reason to oppose a ITN nomination!?! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask all the other people who have opposed for the same reason, instead of acting shocked by something that has already been said multiple times? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As she's not directly in line for the throne (i.e she's presumptive, not apparent) & therefore 'barring an unforeseen event' won't ever be queen-regnant. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Feeble oppose - my money's on "Frogmella", or possibly "Chardonnay Krystal Sky". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC) ... or possibly "Doris Camilla"...
 * Oppose I've met Ol' Charlie boy...twice before I believe. And his estranged and most recently deceased ex-wife once looked into my maternity ward cot and told my mother what a "beautiful baby" I was, some 25 +years ago (proabably at the same time her husband was off humpin'a'frumpin). Yet still, I can't muster the courage to support this, given how much bullshit and nonsensical fanfare this "event" really is, simply. Woman gives birth to a baby. Media hypes it. Move along, move along! --60.255.0.22 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Housewife has second sprog" is not really meritorious news. The first one made a degree of sense, though I still didn't personally consider it that important, because it directly changed the line of succession, and could at least have been argued to have had the kind of impact that, say, the recent Saudi royal shuffle had—although, wait, wasn't that one closed without being posted? Maybe perceived cuteness is a factor here, then. GRAPPLE   X  14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've learned a new Britishism. Sca (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pity you learnt it from one who isn't british, but something every day. GRAPPLE   X  15:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * N.B. correct full expression is ""Housewife drops second sprog," which I think would be my preferred alt blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC) ... see: 1:32
 * What's the etymology – SPawns (Royal) pollywOG? Sca (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what are you talking about? If that's an attempt at humour, it failed, epically.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can we close this now? There's obviously no consensus to post (and by my reckoning, there's considerably more opposition than support) and the discussion is starting to, uh, wander. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's put the heiress unapparent out of our misery. Sca (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind closing it. But I think that I achieved what I wanted by nominating it. WP:ITN should really have a general discussion over what they understand by in the news. I am sick of people writing stuff like Woman gets a child. Hardly newsworthy. People here seem to believe ITN is not for displaying WP-articles relating to what is actually in the news, but they think should be in the news, if we lived in a better world. I don't share this approach. I would gladly contribute further to a general discussion on the topic. If we continue to post women's basketball matches who no-one gives a damn about, but then don't post when Hillary Clinton runs for president, then I don't want to be involved here any longer, cause then the name in the news simply has no meaning whats-o-ever... Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ruth Rendell

 * Support on article improvements CBE + other achievements seem right in line with importance. A handful of CN tags and unsourced paragraphs that need to be fixed. --M ASEM (t) 13:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with updates/improvements. No orange tags, but quite a few unreferenced claims in the article, including some potential BLP violations (the "making up stories" at a newspaper bit, which is fabulism and deeply frowned upon in the business). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - an very important author.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support prominent author. Let's get those few cns cleared up and post.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support very prominent author. Article needs a few more sources, but I think that shouldn't pose as a big deal. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support, rather good over all, but there are half a dozen [now fixed] potentially controversial unreffed claims, and things like "Many credit her and close friend P. D. James for upgrading the entire genre of whodunit, shaping it more into a whydunit" scare me as possible editorializing or copyvios. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support No major issues with article and an obvious RD posting. Post asap.... 82.21.7.184 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready I have verified all the claims attributed to primary sources, deleted one minor unsupported claim and commented out three sentences that sound like editorializing. As of this edit the article has no tags and is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rechecked per Medeis' comment and it now looks good to go for ITN posting quality expectations. --M ASEM (t) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RD: Geoff Duke

 * Support Enough notability for RD. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Needs work, I'm sure User:LoveToLondon will be happy to help.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements I don't know a lot on motorsports, but I will take on good faith of the nominations and the context of the article that these wins are considered the top tier for motorcross. Some areas could use sourcing touchups. --M ASEM  (t) 00:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Week Oppose a small article and a pretty narrow niche, although apparently he did come up with the idea of a one piece racing suit. Would just be careful to make sure he was placed to the right of Rendell and Plisetskaya in the queue so he ages off first. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What pretty narrow niche? He won 4 times the highest class in the world motorcycle championship, which is a pretty popular sports. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to help bring the article up to the quality required for consideration to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This looks like one of the very best racers of his time - when he was competing, he appears to have been at the very apex of the motorcycle Grand Prix. With the proper sourcing for the article, I am of the mind that this is what RD is for. Challenger l (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Seems adequately referenced now. &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nigerian women rescued

 * Support, but Wait for 24 hours - AP says "It is still not known if any are the schoolgirls kidnapped from a boarding school in Chibok town" - the girls from the Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping are believed to be in Sambisa Forest, some could be identified in the next 24 hours and that will be the headline because of previous global attention. Also, articles need updates. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait in agreement with Aronzak. It's the Chibok 200 that the world is anxiously waiting news on, even though others have been kidnapped and released since. --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - For those who haven't been paying close attention, coalition forces have been making steady progress against Boko Haram since February. Victory is near complete and prisoners have been being freed all week.  I have been working on a near article, 2015 West African offensive, specifically to put the freeings in the proper context ahead of an ITN nomination.  (I changed the blurb link accordingly) The article isn't ready yet, but this is clearly big news, so when it is ready it should be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as updated, it's a bit odd to say that the release of one set of 700 hostages would be less important than the release of another set of 700 hostages. The rescue of 70 hostages would be enough for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree completely; there is no reason to wait - the blurb can always be updated if warranted. It's insulting to imply the freed hostages aren't important if they didn't happen to come from Chibok. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not all of the women were hostages. Some of them fired at Nigerian army, but the scale of captured/freed people illustrated that there is mayor (WW2-scale) counter-insurgent operation happening.--Jenda H. (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See Stockholm syndrome. Also, years of brainwashing will do that to a person - the damage done to these women by Boko Haram is immeasurable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Both articles are now updated. Work will be ongoing, but ITN standards are met for 2015 West African offensive.
 * I changed the number rescued to 500+. There were two mass rescued: 300+ and 230+, but the second one was reported twice, initially as 160.  There have been smaller rescues too, so it is possible that it hit 700 now, but 500+ is certain and doesn't diminish the importance any. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Boko Haram article as a main article for the nom, since the news specifically deals with the Nigerian offensive and the Boko Haram article is far too broad. The latter also seems to be the target of a lot of POV editting.  Focusing on the immediate facts the Nigerian offensive article is relevant, well written and well updated. Suggest this is ready. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Bolded article is of sufficient quality, clearly a major story, consensus supports posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: María Elena Velasco

 * Only eight films over 42 years for which we have articles, she seems to have played a stock role, and I see no awards. I'll be grateful if I can support after a better case or significant improvements.  I'm going to check if we have any locally available movies in the library. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing the importance here, even if we limit the field to Mexican cinema. --M ASEM (t) 04:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. &mdash; Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 04:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment She seems to have played a regular recurring character over the course of decades. I do not feel qualified or familiar enough with her work to tell if she is an extra in that role, or simply plays the same face every time, or if she was central to the movies, and my lack of fluency in the language also isn't helping. Does playing the same character for that length of time make an actor famous, notable or influential? In this case, I honestly don't know. Challenger l (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hollywood Reporter calls her an "icon" and describes her character as the central protagonist of the films. I'm not familiar with Mexican cinema either, but it certainly appears she was a recognizable and beloved figure therein. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as not meeting the criteria, though I have the same concerns as Challenger. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

[posted] Officers involved in death of Freddie Gray charged

 * Support Significant news story that has remained in the news for weeks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weak Support We don't include the criminal charge, we include the result of the trial. --M ASEM (t) 00:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say this case is different, considering how often police in these incidents have been able to avoid being charged, whether in Ferguson or Staten Island or any other place. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On thinking about this, I think this is right, but I'm going to suggest an alt blurb to capture the larger story. --M ASEM (t) 02:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support week long riots and national protests, a curfew in one of the nation's largest cities, tens of thousands shut out of a national league home game, calls for the mayor's resignation, admission that the government told police to stand down in face of riots, no valid charge made against dead suspect who was not properly detained according to direct orders, six officers charged with high offenses. Same level as the Indian rape and protests case we published two years back.  This won't come to trial for years and it's absurd to say the story is not important now. Blurb should probably mention aftermath. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: The riots didn't last for a week. IIRC, the protests went on for about a week before there was vandalism of some police vehicles on the evening/night of Saturday, April 25. The funeral for Freddie Gray was held on the morning or in the early afternoon of Monday, April 27 and the rioting and looting began in earnest shortly thereafter. I think it subsided by daybreak the next day and the curfew first went into effect that night. Also, the Baltimore Orioles and the Chicago White Sox are in the American League. (Perhaps the game that was played without any fans in the stands should have gotten its own ITN blurb since that was the first time in the history of Major League Baseball that that had happened.) Finally, the reason that Freddie Gray wasn't "valid[ly]" charged with anything must be that he was unconscious by the time the van got to the police station. 71.183.129.212 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said week long riots, protests, and a curfew. I would have put a period after riots had I meant they alone lasted a week.  I had thought there was one other game that was played with no audience, but I may be wrong.  If this is the second it is still newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed the blurb to read ...protests... instead of ...riots... Protests are ongoing and lasting at least a week.  The riots were certainly more sporadic.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Alt blurb provide to capture the issues from earlier in the week. --M ASEM (t) 02:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for the alt blurb. I opposed the previous nomination since at the time the protests had not yet evolved into the violence we have seen. I think the recent developments trump the normal rule that favors reporting only the results of criminal trials. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This has become a very big story getting international attention, and it's time for it to go on ITN. This is as notable a development as any. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments. I'll support the alt blurb.  I'd prefer to mention more detail, but I think that would slow don the process, and we don't need the perfect as the enemy of the good here, people can get the details from the article.  I'd also like to point out that the presumption of innocence is for the accused, whom in this case was both falsely arrested and is now dead. The police won't serve time for depraved murder, manslaughter or false imprisonment unless the charges are proven, but it's up to the state to make a case that the arrest was warranted, which it has already been granted was not the case, otherwise these officers are not going to get their jobs back and the victim's family is going to get a huge settlement--that's why this is not a case where we need to wait to see if a private citizen was innocent.  Police are not private citizens when acting as agents of the state.  I suggest this be posted ASAP unless there is some problem with the article.  Given the updates, support and lack of tags I am going to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support High profile case; important development.  Spencer T♦ C 05:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, though I would say the curfew is the biggest news here, altblurb II would be better. Also, it was posted pretty quickly. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment posted after three hours? And we now post "charges" rather than "convictions"?  Oh well, third time's the charm I guess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I thought we didn't post until convictions came. Isn't that a BLP issue? 331dot (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That charges have been filed is a verifiable fact. It is not hearsay, it is not a secret. There is no BLP issue. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - It is unusual to post charges rather than convictions, but it is also unusual for police officers to be charged with murdering the people they kill. This story has been big news all week, and while I appreciate calls for cautious and measured reporting, many of the prior objections to posting it have been callous and dismissive. The time is right; let's keep this posted and stay civil. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can "United States" be removed from the posted blurb? I think most English-speakers probably know what country Baltimore is in. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, it should be common enough and if not user is 2 clicks away from figuring that out. (If anything, it should be "Baltimore, Maryland" if we need a more global identifier). --M ASEM  (t) 22:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – In U.S. usage, "relation to" is redundant; "in the death of" would be sufficient. Sca (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I adjusted the wording a few days ago and I was unsure about that part. I've now done as you've suggested. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit ambiguous, one officer was charged only for false arrest, and that is not a case of being charged in his death. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Expo 2015

 * support - important and interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements - Two major sections are under/unreferenced. The event is certainly important enough for ITN.  (Comment: while I know the logo is over at commons and supposely PD-ineligible, I'm not 100% sure about that, as in countries with "sweat of brow"-type originality threshholds, that may be sufficient due to the placement and shapes.) --M ASEM  (t) 20:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - in addition the the lack of referencing in several sections, there is no information on the opening which would be a requisite for ITN coverage. I also agree that the PD tag is questionable and in any case featuring a log is very boring - let's skip the picture, assuming the article is improved to postable status. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending per Masem. Joshua Garner (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose - World Fairs used to be major events but this is no longer the case. Who remembers where the last two took place ? Hektor (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They still are - held between every 2-4 years. Last was in Korea Expo 2012 3 years ago. A major international celebration just slightly more frequent than the Olympics should not be an issue for ITN in terms of importance. --M ASEM (t) 22:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * support with improvement in article - Details about opening ceremonies on May 1 as well as the protests against the event in a separate section. werldwayd (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: I'd be more interested in having this item on ITN if something actually happened at the World's Fair, rather than just a general announcement that it's happening. These events draw far less attention all around (in academia, in popular culture, in mass media, etc.) than they used to, and just the fact that it opened isn't independently notable, in my opinion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also some issues with the article, not the least of which is an entirely unreferenced prose "Site" section and a bevy of orange tags. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the last world's fair we posted? Is there some sort of singularly recognized body of world fairs?  Tending meh. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is. It's called the Bureau of International Expositions, and it's been organizing them since 1928, and retroactively recognizing prior World's Fairs back to 1851.  It's the World's Fair equivalent of the IOC.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do realize that there will be bodies that do this, but it reminds me of Miss America, and Miss USA, and whatever other Miss United States's there might be. That article doesn't mention the Queens World's Fair--it seems to go back to 1984.  And wasn't there a weird Canadian world's fair that had a spring as a mascot?  My point is that this seems more like a self congratulatory thing than the Olympics, which has venues, but would be a big thing wherever it was held.  (In any case, thanks for the response.) μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The introduction of Mascots only goes back to 1984. The full list of BIE-sponsored expositions it at List of world expositions and the 1964 Queens World Fair (as well as the prior 1939 on) are both there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending article improvement. This is ITN/R, and should be posted as long as the article quality meets minimum ITN standard. -Zanhe (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While this should be posted as long as quality of the article is adequate, I think a good argument could be made for removing World's Fairs from ITNR as they just aren't as big a deal anymore; I believe the last one to get a great deal of attention was the 1967 one in Montreal. The Internet has reduced their importance. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the end of the conference. Not a big deal unless any genuinely novel/tangible innovation gets released for food security. At the moment the article is just a circlejerk about the countries attending and the corporate sponsors - with no detail of whether any of them actually have anything novel. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R says the opening of World's Fairs should be at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please disregard the Oppose opinions based on claimed lack of importance - as long as it is listed at ITN/R this is not a valid complaint. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and oppose on significance regardless of ITNR standing. It shouldn't be there, it shouldn't be posted, next.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is on ITN/R and will be posted if anyone cares enough to fix up the article. If no one cares to fix it (which seems to be the case), it won't be posted -"problem" solved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN/R is based on assumed consensus. If actual consensus is against posting, the item neither belongs on iTNR nor should it go up. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as outdated self-perpetuating self-promotion. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice - there is a discussion on the ITN/R talk page regarding whether or not to remove World Expos from ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ben E. King

 * Support pending article improvements. There's an orange tag on insufficient citations that must be addressed, and for a recently living person, there's almost nothing about his personal life. But he was a well-known and influential R&B singer and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee. He obviously meets notability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality only. If the problems noted by Kudzu are fixed, he's clearly recognizable enough for RD.  But we can't link to an article on the main page with these sorts of problem.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strike oppose. Article is now sufficient per recent fixes.  Changing to Support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on article improvement. Subject is a major figure in music history and definitely merits ITN/RD notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The man is certainly notable, but the article is not in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: References have been added for what appears to be everything in the prose sections of the article, and improvements have been made to make the article more robust and up-to-date. The orange tag is gone. I'm still a bit iffy on the list section, as there is no source given for where his various singles and whatnot charted. We can either try to track that down (I don't edit on music articles much and am not sure how to go about confirming those chart positions, but others may have some preferred references to use) or cut everything that can't be immediately confirmed to get this article into good shape for posting tonight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I finished one last CN tag (on his solo R&R nominations), and feel the article's in good shape for RD posting. There's still more improvements that could be made but that's not a problem for now. --M ASEM (t) 00:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support certainly very notable, the only problem I see is that many of the minor singles have no linked article and hence should either be removed (hidden) or preferably reffed. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this area of the article improved, but in my opinion, it's not poor enough to preclude posting now, so I'm going to mark the nom as ready. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable indeed, and RD was made for just this type of nomination. Jus  da  fax   03:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! In the space of barely a week we have Sledge and King..what a loss indeed ;( #RIP 120.62.25.124 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)