Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 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.

[Posted] Renminbi

 * Support. Was about to add the same. Added my blurb as alternative. --bender235 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your blurb is clearly better. Feel free to delete my blurb and move yours up as the only proposed blurb. Thue (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually your blurb may be slightly inaccurate. The Renminbi has only been approved, not added yet. I made my main blurb a fixed version of yours. Thue (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in concept ... but I would like to ask if the renminbi article is the best target here, or should be the only target. The story is clearly appropriate for ITN but I would want to make sure the right articles are appropriately up to par. --M ASEM (t) 22:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb: Significant development in international monetary policy, something we don't highlight much but nonetheless has a wide-ranging impact. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a major milestone per NYT, and developments like this are extremely rare. -Zanhe (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Likely to be a turning point in world history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; prefer altblurb; the article needs the orange referencing tag fixing before posting -- unless special drawing rights were used as the target? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea on moving the target to special drawing rights. I have done so in my main blurb. Thue (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * neutral but I lean towards the precedence of adding this for additions/removals. This is the first one since the ITN-era? Although as a non-fully-convertible currency this is a notable (and rubbish) step.Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, though I'm agnostic on whether renminbi or special drawing rights shoudl be the bold link. Whichever gets the best update is fine with me. The decision has been taken and the item is in the news now, so there's no need to wait for it to come into effect. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with this caveat: I believe the Chinese currency is more commonly known as the yuan – it was referred to as such on U.S. TV news Monday.
 * Sca (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as interesting financial news. A yuan is one unit of the currency, not the currency itself. Keep it as renminbi, unless the orange tags are not timely fixed. Alt blurb 3 is preferred to link directly to the term. Mamyles (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted I went with the first proposed blurb; the altblurbs highlight an article that has more referencing issues than that one. -- Jayron 32 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest "the Renminbi" instead of "China's Renminbi" in the blurb, simply by convention. When we refer to currencies - say, the US Dollar, the Pound Sterling, the Euro - we don't usually use the possessives "the United State's Dollar", "the United Kingdom's Pound Sterling", or "the European Union's Euro". If it's important to keep "China" there, write instead the "Chinese Renminbi", in the style of the Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc, etc. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I changed it to "Chinese renminbi", since it seems important to mention China in the blurb, as China's fortune is the real underlying story. Thue (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Shigeru Mizuki

 * Weak support with article improvements. Some unreferenced paragraphs and not a lot of detail about his work. I think he's notable based on the awards, but some indication of how and why he won them would be appropriate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * support - notability established through awards.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gap in article coverage between 1957 and 1991.  Spencer T♦ C 01:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - influential and widely popular, according to The New York Times. -Zanhe (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Grey Cup

 * Oppose there are plenty of sports items (especially football) and of those listed at ITNR this is by far one of the least deserving ones. I would rather have see a say women's entries posted than another only-one-(small)-country-sport getting an ITRN pass. Nergaal (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R, article appears to be updated and sourced. No idea why practically every ITN/R sports item attracts objections in the wrong venue for such things, when the only task here is article assessment.  Griping here is a waste of your words and everyone's time. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 16:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per ITNR, and article has sufficient prose on the match and results. --M ASEM (t) 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's ITN/R and well updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it might be the biggest sport in Canada but it hardly make a ripple outside it, the next question is should we include sports in ITN/R that have little impact outside its native countries? Donnie Park (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN does not consider nationalistic issues and in fact this type of thinking is strongly discouraged. Just because it affects only one nation does not necessarily mean it is not of international interest. --M ASEM (t) 17:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want it removed from ITN/R, bring it up in a discussion at that page, where it should be discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and mark as ready. Opposers should start a discussion at ITNR if they wish this to be removed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron 32 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the enthusiasm to get this posted, but you lot were so eager to get it up there that you forgot to put a full stop at the end of the blurb!!--WaltCip (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to why was this considered ready? Last time I checked, team sports include rosters with lists of players taking part in the game, which seems to be missing here. Nergaal (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can point to the written requirement to do so, please show us that. -- Jayron 32 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2015 World Series, which was posted at the beginning of November, doesn't include their full rosters. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But it does have a prose update. As far as I know, the only requirement is sufficient, well-referenced text to describe the actual event being posted.  -- Jayron 32 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, last I checked, expand-section is orange level, and would be adequate for a completely missing section. Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a sports editor (mostly baseball), I think it's debatable whether or not a sports championship event can be considered "incomplete" without the full rosters listed. It's certainly important for All-Star Games, but for a championship game? I don't think that's the S.O.P. for any of the major sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not thinking necessary of a full roster, but a roster of the players that actually did get to play. That would be around 10 for baseball, and 25 for this. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That tag is not currently in the article. However, perhaps you want to know what would happen if you were to deliberately add it to the article, just to make it "ineligible", because you (as you state below) don't like sports articles on ITN?  That would probably not be advised.  The article has sufficient text to describe the event, which is all that is required at WP:ITN, according to the rules.  If you would like to change the rules, start an RFC somewhere to add your desired requirements.  Unless and until you get consensus to change the rules, we'll continue following what is already written.  -- Jayron 32 19:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You should not try to put words in my mouth. I like sports as ITN items, and some of the things I would like to see don't get posted (which get way higher numbers of followers than a Canadia-limited event). However, there seems to be a bias at ITNC towards having a very low threshold for some kneejerk topics (sports, politics and terrorism to name a few), and I am trying to point out the inconsistencies with respect to other topics. As the main editor of the article I am absolutely sure you can put together a full roster in less time than what it took you to write the reply above. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never edited the article. -- Jayron 32 20:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While I am sorry that Canada is not the United States or England, that is not something I am able to change. Also, Jayron32 is not the main editor of the article, I am.  And if you would like me to add a roster list, then a polite request to do so is something I am willing to entertain.  But lets be honest here Nergaal. You are not making a polite request to do so. You are making this request in bad faith to try and wikilawyer this off ITN. Resolute 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the user Nergaal is making a point for the fifth or sixth time here, perhaps it's time to consider a topic ban should this disruptive behaviour persist. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wtf are you two talking about? Weren't non-obvious ITN entries expected to be of higher standard before publishing than items that are generally unanimously agreed upon. I am starting to wonder if TRM understands what disruptive behavior is. Nergaal (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disruptive behavior (sic) is posting pointed oppositions with no justification other than "I don't like it" at multiple ITNRs simultaneously. Disruptive behavior (sic) is flooding the talk page of ITNR with multiple complaints about extant ITNR items and then expecting everyone else to do the job for you.  Disruptive behavior (sic) is claiming editors have done things they haven't done.  I don't even understand your response, what's  "non-obvious ITN entry" comment doing underneath an ITNR?  You don't get much more "obvious" than an ITNR.  As I said, if the disruption continues, a topic ban will be in order.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove Paris attacks aftermath as Ongoing?
Wikipedia is not a memorial site, but I'm worried about how long "November 2015 Paris attacks" will have been featured in the Main Page. The event was totally tragic, like Metrojet Flight 9268 crash, and the press still has discussed it very often. However, the article hasn't seen significant developments lately. The "Search for accomplices" section hasn't seen much updates. Reactions shouldn't be that newsworthy at Wiki-standards. I nominated "European migrant crisis" twice to be removed from the Main Page, but consensus wants to keep the event featured as "Ongoing", despite lull in editing. Shall "November 2015 Paris attacks" be treated the same as "European migrant crisis" or be removed from the Main Page for being less updated than it was when it became "Ongoing" in the Main Page? Salah Abdeslam (whose article now exists) is not yet captured but still on the run. If captured, a blurb should do in the next nomination. George Ho (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I did nominate "Syrian Civil War" to be Ongoing in response, but I'm awaiting results there. --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing does seem to have lulled there in the past few days, but given that Thanksgiving has quietened much activity here, it might pick up again shortly? It is certainly not out of the news; the BBC for instance has Obama laying a wreath on its index page right now, and the fact of the climate talks being in Paris on Monday has also led to discussions of enhanced security. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanksgiving has been celebrated in early October in Canada and the United Kingdom. Americans are not the only ones frequently editing the page. Britons and Canadians and Aussies also edit the page. --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We all know that a majority are Americans. He meant no harm.Correctron (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove. There are no longer frequent developments that would justify keeping an entry in the ongoing section. If something major crops up we could reassess, but right now this has gone stale. Modest Genius talk 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove. The major elements of the story are all contained now. Brussels is back open, and football matches even in Paris are being played in front of crowds, albeit only local supporters allowed. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove as per above, coverage import but significant updates/changes have trickled out. --M ASEM (t) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Eldar Ryazanov

 * Oppose article is a stub and therefore I'm not convinced that it shows how he is important in the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. Directed Irony of Fate, one of the most popular, if not the most popular, Soviet films. 93.215.87.182 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Popularity doesn't equate to notability, or else we'd be posting the Kardashians every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What kind of logic is that? Of course having directed one of the most popular Soviet films equates notability. 93.215.87.182 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't quite understand what I wrote. Never mind.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And maybe you don't understand what I wrote. Never mind indeed. 93.215.75.4 (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probable Support pending article improvements. He certainly appears to be a notable Russian director, and the article on Русский Wikipedia appears to be significantly longer and better sourced.  If the English article were brought up to comparable standards I see no reason not to RD this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. No opinion on notability, but the article is in no state to post at the moment -- no inline references, for a start! If someone is willing to translate the corresponding article, or expand from obituaries, then we can start to consider it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Davis Cup

 * Oppose It's currently two lines of prose, one ref and alot of tables. Maybe support if expanded.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with expansion. Notable end to a lengthy sporting drought. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The article as it stands is woefully inadequate. Also, do we normally post Davis Cups, since it's not at ITN/R? If not, why should be post this one? Fgf10 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article significantly since the comments by and . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose too many sports-related entries at ITN. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That has nothing at all to do with this individual candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By using that as your oppose rationale you seem to be conceding this otherwise meets the criteria for posting; us that the case? If you feel there are too many of one type of event posted, please nominate other events more to your liking. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See the section right below this one. Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bummer, you picked a lemon. Try again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only reason why this event is getting so many coverage now (in the UK at least) is that the long gap it had between winning and what about other countries and what about the other years as I've never seen any of it being headline news in comparison to the Grand Slam. Donnie Park (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is the UK supposed to win this cup, or why would this be notable? 93.215.87.182 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but according to our own article: "The Davis Cup is the premier international team event in men's tennis." so the nomination seems reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question The article on the Davis Cup has this to say: "The competition began in 1900 as a challenge between Great Britain and the United States."  So I can see the angle for posting, but I'm not sure if the notability of this isn't purely a regional thing given how many other countries now compete.  My question is: do any of the other countries competing care that GB broke their drought?  I mean this seriously, not as rhetoric; if popular international reaction says this is a big deal, then maybe it's worth examining, but if not then it seems to me it would fall squarely under regional news. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 2015_Davis_Cup adequately updated now.  Spencer T♦ C 02:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as the top competition between nations in tennis. It's hardly our fault if some years it gets a better update than others - what matters is whether this year's article is up to scratch. I don't think we should mention the drought, as that's a trivia quiz statistic. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added an alternative blurb that uses our standard phrasing (to avoid ENGVAR issues). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Update is good, Davis Cup is IMO the biggest event in tennis outside of the slams. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Update is good, and the Davis Cup - while not a major (and therefore not ITNR) - does get sufficient world wide coverage and notoriety. In this case, I'm willing to extend a support vote due to breaking the long drought. Resolute 14:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe its the "biggest" in Wikipedia but it hardly make headlines except the finals, the next question is in the last few years, how much of it became headline news because until this year, it hardly did in the UK. I also doubt the ATP is going to lose sleep having its attention taken away from their Tour Finals, neither will Kobe Bryant with his recently announced retirement that is making waves in sports news. Davis Cup seem to have now as much prestige now as the post-feminist Miss World, I personally think all sport ITNs should be those that make headline news worldwide and this only has in the UK because of it plus I've not seen any of it in SI.com, neither in NY Times. Donnie Park (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? "I've not seen any of it in SI.com, neither in NY Times". Maybe you should look harder? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - it's "in the news" and I would have aslo supported had Belgium won. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb, as it is the standard format we usually use for posting sporting events. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we add a picture of Andy Murray to the hook, because there's no picture in the ITN section right now? (See Talk:Main Page.) Eman 235 / talk  06:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Before seeing this I suggested a picture of captain Leon Smith at WP:ERRORS. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the Smith image, but have no objection to someone replacing it with one of Murray. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we change the image to File:Leon Smith.jpg, which is a better image of him?. January  ( talk ) 11:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 25 (Adele album)

 * Support A well referenced and comprehensive article that deserves spotlight on the main page. However, the blurb should reflect that it speaks about US sales. Have proposed alt-blurb. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The album did break the UK sales also, and I am pretty sure it set other records too, just by looking at the List of fastest-selling albums. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, but we cannot be sure it does so everywhere or world-wide, so the blurb cannot simply say "fastest selling ever". Listing the countries is also not practical if there are too many. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I rather not give weight to fastest album sales as I prefer it to go to all time sales but Wikipedia gave ITN to GTA V for the fastest first day sale in videogame sales 2 years ago but that was for all medias. Donnie Park (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, advertish vanity fair. If it becomes the first or second best selling of all time worldwide, I'd reconsider. Brandmeistertalk  18:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - well referenced and a news definitely for ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The announcement is today, but the ending week was 27th. Shall we move it to earlier date? --George Ho (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally we post results when they're announced so I think it's fine at this date.  Spencer T♦ C 02:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I'd prefer a more global aspect of this, but it seems notable by itself. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Love Adele, but this seems to be an artifact of the ease of online-downloading and a change in Billboards sales metrics in December 2014 which added in online sales for the first time. This will necessarily have the effect of front-loading sales for newly released works by established artists.  No going to the mall to see the album is out-of-stock, just download from your cellphone as you drive on the interstate. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not convinced of the notability of first week sales, especially since the world ain't getting any smaller, and content delivery is getting dramatically faster and easier - but if what Medeis says is true and there has been a change in how sales metrics are obtained, then that more or less nullifies it for me. Not sure how I'll feel if this turns into an all-time sales record, but I see no reason it couldn't be renominated if it does. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As said, even when record-breaking, I don't see how this something "special" meets ITN standards. Anyone can download the whole album from Google Play or Amazon or any other website, making it most downloaded album of all-time, but that's nothing compared to owning a physical copy. We can wait for either CDs to be dominant again as it was before downloading came along or a newer physical format, i.e. something innovative, to compete downloading and streaming. Or perhaps we'll find a non-Western fastest-selling album of all-time to counter this "special" news. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support In general we have too few cultural-related stories on the front page compared to sports events; there is practically always one sports event included, while much more seldom anything related to music. This is a very good example of a relevant music-related events; it's nice to sometimes have something a bit different from just the awards events. And the interest and coverage of Adele's album has been extraordinay and the sources for the record sale appear valid as far as I can see. (Billboard), (New York Times) Iselilja (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is actually of little surprised based on the performance of "Hello", and also what I consider vanity as other !voters have suggested. --M ASEM (t) 20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia, would make a great DYK. P.S. Why single out the US as the country where it had the most sales ever in the first week?  The same happened in the UK.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - So what? As per editors above. Furthermore, no reason to mention the US records, but not the records in other countries. Also, IMNSHO Adele is the most overrated singer in recent history, but I digress..... Fgf10 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Japan to resume whaling

 * oppose Iceland and Norway never stopped.Lihaas (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose if what Lihaas has said is true, can it be referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Got a quick search showing it still happens in Faroe Islands. p (dated last year).Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose because nothing has actually happened yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the fleet actually leaves port. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose What Lihaas says matches with what I know of the subject, but I believe Iceland and Norway refused to sign the 1986 IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, while Japan is bound to the moratorium and has allegedly circumvented it via scientific harvesting, so it's not directly comparable.  Nevertheless, I don't think it's significant unless some kind of action is taken against Japan.  If sanctions or some other significant action is taken, I'd likely support posting that. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Azawad attack

 * comment at least 3 killed. While that's low for ITN, the target is notable.Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending article improvement; attacks on UN facilities/personnel are notable. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a minor skirmish in a much larger war with thousands of dead. The UN force has been attacked multiple times, with 44 soldiers having been killed in the last two years. 87.154.210.140 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support An attack on an UN base is notable, no matter how low the casualty count is.  ƬheStrike  Σagle   14:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - While it is an attack on a UN installation, we should consider that that this is part of the larger conflict in that region that has been going on for some time, so it might not be as significant as it seems. But given the staleness of ITN in the last few days, its reasonable. --M ASEM (t) 14:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the main question is "so what"? Is this a story that our readers will be looking for?  If it's not anywhere near the main pages of major news outlets, I doubt it.  It seems to be minor and the article is just above stub quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN items do not require to be at the top of any news site, just that they are covered by reliable news sources (CNN easily qualifies). Dismissing a story just because it is not front page news everywhere is not a valid reason to oppose. I'd also suggest against avoiding trying to determine if it is the type of story that our readers might be interested in. We should be aiming for diversity in both topic and geography, not primarily on interest.   --M ASEM  (t) 20:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a moot point since it's never getting on the main page, but is it "a UN" or "an UN"? The latter spelling seems like it would only make sense if it were pronounced phonetically rather than by spelling it out, which generally is not the case.--WaltCip (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If ever posted, it would be "A United Nations...." so that's not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not a high magnitude attack, not a major story. 1.39.61.143 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: O'Neil Bell

 * Getting stale...but support as top of his fiel.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If his death was unexpected, it should get a blurb, which I'm not sure is warranted here; I'm not sure he was 'very important' to his field. Article is also very slim at the moment. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Defo not blurb, but RD.Lihaas (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - a somewhat successful boxer, but hardly at the top of his field. 87.154.210.140 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality of article, too weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and merits; while perhaps above average I don't think he was "very important" to boxing. Article quality is also not there. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted the article is crap, he won a title in his weight divisionLihaas (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As have thousands of boxers. That doesn't mean they're important to the field of boxing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I would look for, did this person pioneer a notable boxing style, influence other boxers, awards, etc. Winning belts is expected of most boxers. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove European migrant crisis from ongoing?
My previous proposal to remove European migrant crisis as ongoing did not go well, despite two supports and two opposes. This time, even when Paris attacks affects the crisis, there have not been frequent updates lately. In fact, editing has slowed down. Whether the crisis is in the news frequently no longer matters. I checked recent developments and found nothing new... except typical politics. If removed, this leaves Paris attacks aftermath the only ongoing event in the Main Page. That shouldn't affect the Main Page, should it? --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The undertones of the migrant crisis continue, and there are news items that say some variant of "in the aftermath of the Paris attacks we should restrict immigration from Muslim refugees", which is definitely related to the migrant crisis. That said, other items are dominating the news right now. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose At least in Germany, this is still very much top of the news every day. There have been major developments in the last few days, for instance in Sweden. No updates to the article is not a reason to take this off ITN, but rather to get to it and add the new information. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well. The situation is escalating also because several countries have now declared that they will only accept people fleeing from war zones. So there are new developments all the time. --Tone 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * keep I just looked at two national news media websites in my country, and the refugee crisis was still on the front page of both today. Thue (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose/keep – Lull in editing ≠ lull in event. Issues are continually unfolding and it continues to become more problematic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - While in principle I agree with you, some time ago we removed the Southeast Asian Haze from ongoing because of a lull in editing. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The reason to keep something in ongoing is for an article receiving frequent updates, not because it is just in the news. The editing rate on the article has drastically slowed down so it is no longer appropriate for ongoing. --M ASEM (t) 17:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if no updates is your concern, then WP:JUSTDOIT. There's plenty to choose from. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time at the moment, unfortunately. Keeping the article on the main page will serve the purpose of bringing editors there and do more work on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not that it is not being updated, but from what news I see on it, there is little to update on a frequent basis. It's a big story in the news day to day as it is still happening, but there is little actual day to day change in the "story" that merits frequent encyclopedic updates. And Ongoing is meant for stories that do have frequent encyclopedic updates. --M ASEM (t) 23:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a no-brainer, with the events in Europe lately, and the strong feelings about immigration, this is fine at Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above rationale. Concerns about the numbers of migrants remain big news not just in Europe, but also making ripples in North America and Australia &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

[Needs attention] Blue Origin rocket landing

 * Oppose for a few reasons (1) the BBC article is like a press release from the company; there was no media at the rocket launch/landing so all information comes from the company. Questionable reliability. (2) this development seems like an incremental step in progress - the rocket lands and can be used again - doesn't seem like a significant development yet (3) the article hasn't been fully updated e.g. the "mission" section is written about a future planned mission but hasn't this mission just happened? MurielMary (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, a very significant "increment" and we usually post the launch of any new series of rockets, none of which has landed under power. That being said, I agree entirely with Modest Genius's reservations on the reliability and independence of sources.  When I clicked on the news item for this this morning I expected to see a launch and landing.  Instead there was a news anchor and some talking heads discussing this but without any actual footage. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian source above has the footage, albeit taken from Blue Origin's press release. Skip to 1:45 for the landing. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is not significant, especially after (albeit a ropey) Virgin commercial trial or two. What makes this any different?  It's not clear to me why this is substantially different or more interesting, other than the fact that I'm disappointed by the spelling of "Shepard".  But I do get it, so don't bother.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume it is named after Alan Shepard and so is spelled correctly.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence why I said "But I do get it, so don't bother." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was just about to undo it, but you are too fast and I got an edit conflict. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What's significant is the vertical landing. The rocket goes up to space, then comes back down to Earth and lands itself using the main engine (no parachutes). No-one has ever done that before. I agree that a mere trial run of a suborbital flight would not be sufficient, but the major technological breakthrough of a vertical landing is. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, may I ask another question? What is the scale of this landing?  Is it a vessel within which six or so humans would survive, or is it an experimental craft which proves that we can re-land vehicles from space?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blue_Origin_New_Shepard Three or more passengers (though 0 this time, new manned spaceflight tech would kill too often if it wasn't tested first). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's made me strike the oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Rockets are among the most expensive vehicles ever built, and yet most of them are lost (by design) on launch. A reusable launch vehicle is practically the holy grail of current space flight research, and a vertical landing is incredible.  Calling that an "incremental step in progress" is like saying a car that can go up the street and back and then be used again is incrementally better than one that you can drive for a hundred miles but requires you to bail out of its exploding hulk when you wish to disembark.  Also per Medeis, it's common ITN practice to post the launch of new rocket series, even when they do not represent such a significant step forward - and this one is not only significant, it's a new entry into the commercial spaceflight field, significant in and of itself. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 12:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Essentially what we're looking at here is a big sounding rocket. Both the X-15 and SS1 were reusable, went into space, and soft landed, nothing new there. Thus, in the strictest sense the blurb and noms comments are incorrect. The term VTVL should be added for it to be correct. When SpaceX lands their first stage, that's a game changer. But this? Gets a big 'meh' from me. Fgf10 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they were space planes, not rockets, and required a booster rocket or mothership to get them up there. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, a significant technological development. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is in danger of going stale, but we have 3 supports (4 if you include my nomination) and 1.5 opposes. Marking as [needs attention] in the hope that another couple of sets of eyes can move this towards consensus. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Theres a source tag on the main section of the update. Still a little tight on the update.Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There was one tag, which isn't enough to disqualify posting. Nevertheless I've found a better source and replaced the reference. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Tunis bombing

 * Support I note the BBC article makes it clear it is a suicide bomber that triggered the explosion and suggest the blurb reflect that. I note ISIS is claiming responsibility but they is yet proven out. The article could use a hint more expansion but it will likely take some time for details to filter in. --M ASEM (t) 23:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral/weak oppose at this point - neither CNN nor BBC have this story on their front page, suggesting lack of notability. Also the article is very brief. MurielMary (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because certain websites do not have this attack on their front page does not mean it is not notable. Andise1 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with caveats per Anise. Most media is covered by turkey/Russia at the moment. oF course the article needs major work.Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Clear notability as a mass-casualty terrorist attack in a generally stable place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article would probably be ready with some copy editing. At this point it say in various places that 12, 14, and 15 people were killed. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready article is now in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * proposal merge Mali and Tunisia blurbs? Both in Africa and related to Libya (broadly).Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted with revised blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull too many terrorism-related entries at ITN lately. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Time to start ignoring this user's entries here which seem determined to disrupt the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Douglass North
Nom Douglass North. Nobel prize winning economist. "Obituary: Douglass C. North, Nobel Prize-winning economist, 95" --bender235 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending article improvement. Certainly top of his field, but article needs more referencing. -Zanhe (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on current article quality. As Zanhe said, it needs referencing improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose mere nobel prize has long been discounted as justification for an ITNRD listing. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when? If a "mere nobel prize" (lol, "mere"?) doesn't indicate significance in one's field then I don't know what does. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have to concur with Medeis; rightly or wrongly, that does seem to be the precedent. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Support when updated.Correctron (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on significance; article does need references. The Rise of the Western World remains a standard undergrad textbook on economic history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is not yet in a state to post, and does not seem to be being significantly improved; much is un- or under-referenced, too much leans on a single reference, and the notability, aside from the Nobel prize, is not well explained. Could the nominator or a supporter please link a couple of full obituaries in major newspapers? (The BBC doesn't seem to have covered it.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but unfortunately it doesn't appear that the article will get to a postable state before this goes stale. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New Portuguese PM

 * Support - What makes this story even more interesting is that the President was up until now still trying to keep Pedro Passos Coelho in power as a caretaker Prime Minister, in what the opposition and others were claiming (with justification) as an attempted constitutional coup. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - it's ITN/R if I'm not mistaken. -Zanhe (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Changes to head of state are ITNR, but not changes to head of government. General elections are, which often mention the leader of the party that wins, but any other change in head of government is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * not udaed but weak support the circumstances are very unusual (and its not ITNR, the election was). But the section needs more of an update.Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Premature? The lead of Costa's article says "On 24 November 2015, he was given a list of items by President Aníbal Cavaco Silva that he would like clarified before being appointed prime minister-designate." That implies it's not a done deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I try not to rely on unsourced statements - this is confirmation. The process should be a formality since the SP made their pacts two weeks ago. I'll add a paragraph to Portuguese legislative election, 2015 in the next day or so, if someone hasn't already beaten me to it. Fuebaey (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Should be a formality" gives me pause. It could still fall through, yes? As a wise man once said, "it ain't over 'till it's over". BTW I do of course support this if it is indeed confirmed beyond any shadow of doubt. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for lack of rationale. Costa seems to have half the seats of his nearest rival.  Please explain what's going on, ao we can evaluate this. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the vote in the assembly. This is effectively a government change. --Tone 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many politics entries at ITN. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hunting Ground controversy may see changes to Wikipedia editing rules

 * Strong oppose not that this is not an important issue for en.wiki to figure out but this is far from an ITN-type story. There's other places like the signpost where this can be highlighted. --M ASEM (t) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is not news in any way, shape or form. Not only does nobody other than a few hundred Wikipedia editors care, Jimmy Wales has no powers to change Wikipedia's rules even should he want to. ‑ iridescent 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Roubaix shootings

 * Too soon - There's no evidence at this early date of the scale of this event or of any ties to terrorism. This could easily turn out to be something routine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait - My read of the news stories suggests this is not tied to terrorism but because of where it happened and due to the recent rise in terrorism/threats here, clearly people are a bit on edge to believe this might be serious. Wait to see if this actually is such a case or not. --M ASEM (t) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Police there are saying it is unconnected to the terrorist attacks and looking more like a small time robbery gone wrong. . Assuming this is what it proves out to be oppose since this is just a local crime. --M ASEM (t) 20:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the way it's been presented here is that military-type weapons were being used, so it seemed likely the well-known terrorism suspects are involved. But wait until the article is more than one sentence... LjL (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow-up - they just confirmed on our TV it was an armed robbery, no terrorism. LjL (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The hypersensitivity is understandable, but just a local crime in the end. Resolute 21:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was not a terrorist attack. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian jet shootdown

 * Support on the merits; one country shooting down another's plane is notable. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposing altblurb that leaves out "Turkey says"; all sides seem to agree a jet was lost (and there is film of it) but disagree on the circumstances. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb Clearly a major news story right now. I was busy adding additional information to a different article, but have moved over text to this one, as it was reported here first.  Also tweaked both proposed blurbs to include links to direct section with text about shootdown.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just saw your link. Ill add it to the article. You can Too ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep the target at the larger article, which provides more context and has more details. If and when the new article is as developed as the current Russian military intervention target, we can change it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Theres a minimum update for nw. Obviously over the next 3+ hours more would come in. Nato is meeting in an emergency session in about 2 hours.Lihaas (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All good. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb which I've modified to present tense, but most outlets are pretty clear on how this happened, e.g. BBC: "Turkey shoots down Russian warplane on Syria border", NYT: "Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syria Border", SMH: "Russian fighter jet shot down by Turkish jets near Syrian-Turkish border" so perhaps we should modify the blurb to reflect these reliable sources. Putin has just said "We will never tolerate such atrocities". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note:: The two pilots were seen parachuting to ground. 20.133.40.13 (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note 2: both of whom were shot at by some rebel group and at least one of whom has been declared dead by same. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. That is just one helluva bad day at the office. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Death of pilots both is disputed: . 217.38.141.73 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - that military planes get shot down by accident or by friendly fire in wars is hardly uncommon, and so is this incident. If larger ramifications emerge (break of diplomatic relations, military escalation), then let's post something. But at the moment it seems all that will happen will be a few harsh words being exchanged. 93.215.90.237 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By Turkey's admission, it was not an accident, and Russia also is not saying it was an accident. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, to all intents and purposes, this is an act of war. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Friendly fire"? This is not friendly fire, check the definition. LjL (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This is an extremely important news with many possible repercussions and very likely deterioration in the relations between Russia and Turkey as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb 2 – From what I read "by Turkey" is being treated as an established fact. The only disagreement seems to be about whether it was in Turkish airspace, although given the video coverage there seems little doubt about that either. Sca (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Target article lede says "by the Turkish Air Force." Alt2 could be changed to "by Turkish Air Force jets," (or "F-16s") if that's not too long. Sca (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Major development that could escalate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * READY to post?Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I was initially inclined to wait just to see if this was resolved diplomatically (per IP .237's reasoning), but Putin seems to be pushing for at least calling out Turkey on its actions. --M ASEM (t) 14:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a big deal. Banedon (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - World-wide news. Could escalate. Dismas |(talk) 15:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (altblurb) and suggest quick publication. Obviously major news. LjL (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - well basically, a world wide news. And a possible game changer.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO POSTING ADMIN we don't know the exact location ofw here it was shot down (hence the controversy). We should use the more neutral original blurb indicating the border of both.Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely support. First time a NATO member shot down a Russian jet since the 1950s, early in the Cold War. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted a modified version of Alt2, as the exact location where the shooting happened is contentious. Feel free to report updates as needed to WP:ERRORS for prompt response.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Too vague. Turkey is larger than any European country, and borders on seven countries. That means many possible locations. Can't we at least say is shot down by Turkey near Syria? That would give some indication of one of the Five Ws. Sca (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please report updates as needed to WP:ERRORS for prompt response. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason I keep running into this organizational issue (with several admins) is that not every suggestion for improving an ITN blurb concerns an error per se. The lack of any indication of the incident's location isn't technically an error, it's an omission, or a simple lack of info. The pre-posting discussion of the blurb occurred here, and it seems logical for additional discussion of the blurb to be allowed here. However, please see this. Sca (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And you'll note it got fixed promptly. So... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For some reason the fix isn't showing up on the Main Page display yet. Now it's there.
 * Aside from which, it would make sense to change the headings on Main Page Talk to something like Errors/suggestions. Sca (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's something to take up elsewhere, like WT:MAIN. Suggestions are usually so vague and subjective that they can be dismissed, most importantly because the community has come to a consensus on a blurb before it's posted.  Why then suddenly bend the whim of an individual's subjective opinion unless there's a factual error?  Everyone has a preference, and not everyone has copyedited print.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, leave MP Talk as it is, but allow good-faith post-posting discussion here. Sca (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why have further discussion on the nomination thread when the item has already been posted? That makes no sense.--WaltCip (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quatsch. Sca (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Northern white rhino dies, population down to three

 * Oppose, it's not a species, it's a subspecies, and it's not the last one. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose — if a species becomes extinct, that's news, but we're not going to run a countdown ticker each time a member of an endangered subspecies dies. This doesn't "move the species closer to extinction", anyway; the effort to resurrect the NWR don't involve any of the surviving examples but instead is based on implanting NWR embryos into other rhino surrogates. ‑ iridescent 09:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - It's in the news now. No guarantees the actual extinction will be in the news as well, especially given how many species go extinct every day. Only problem I would say is that the article looks pretty outdated and / or badly structured. There are three rhinos remaining for example, but that is not apparent in that page. Banedon (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The fourth sentence of the opening paragraph of the rhino article states there are three remaining; second paragraph mentions death of the female at San Diego. Also seem to be a large number of updates in the last 24 hours. Or do you mean the San Diego article looks outdated? MurielMary (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * comment is that the last female? If so then its notable as the end of the speces (almost). Any resurrection will then be of a mixed species.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now hope for this subspecies is dead for a long time. So wait for last one in Kenya. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; we aren't a species countdown ticker. This can be posted if they go extinct(not anxious to, it's just reality). 331dot (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Military intervention against ISIL (swap Paris attack aftermath)
Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle reportedly made its strikes recently, with France and Russia apparently leading the way. This is to swap the current link Paris attack aftermath to military intervention against ISIL which seems more precise and developing. Brandmeistertalk  16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The above choice of article is being updated MUCH LESS often than the Paris Attacks article is. The requested ISIL article has only been edited 4 times in the last 24 hours, and in the last week I see only 2-3 updates to the article I would count as substantial.  The Paris Attacks article exceeds 50 edits in the past 12 hours, with at least 4-5 major content additions in that time span.  Based just on that, the Paris Attacks article is the preferred target.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not post the Syrian Civil War as ongoing? The terrorist attacks in Paris, the refugee crisis, the French and Russian (and many other nations, including the US) strikes on ISIL, all these news stories are directly related or are direct consequences of this civil war. All the while, the civil war is going on with an intensity that by itself would justify this civil to be posted as ongoing. And frankly, it should never have been removed. 93.215.90.237 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Just today it appears that the UK will be sending airstrikes against ISIL in Syria.  Time to focus on the bigger picture (e.g. as noted by the IP above) and not just one of the many horrendous individual events, makes perfect sense for Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Syrian Civil War article, there are a few more substantial updates, but not as much activity as the Paris attacks article; its last 50 edits takes us back to October, and while there was a flurry of activity on November 21, the Paris attacks article is getting more updates more recently. Still more action in that article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if such a page exists but it would seem that if we had an outline page (one that follows WP:OUTLINE, not necessarily a prose-filed article but one that is more a inter-wiki link directory) that gave overviews of various articles that touch on the ISIL/Syria situation (including but not limited to the refugee crisis, the Paris attacks, the Metrojet crash, the various historical ruins destroyed by ISIL, etc.) that this would be an acceptable "ongoing" news target even though that specific page may not always be updated. It's this type of specific scenario where the situation is so amorphous and all-encompassing where I'd consider this a possibility; I would not, for example, recommend it at all for something like the Olympics (in that the current Olympics page should be a good overview prose article and not just an outline-level article). --M ASEM (t) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was the admin who put 'Paris attacks aftermath' in Ongoing after the item rolled off, because related news was at the time continuously top of the BBC's news index and the article was being heavily worked on (~50 edits per day). I am entirely happy for it to be replaced with a more general ISIS-related article, as long as a suitable target can be found that is being updated frequently. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move Metrojet Flight 9268 to Ongoing again?
"Metrojet Flight 9268" has been cyclically being removed and reappearing, but perhaps patience wasn't in our minds. This time, I hope patience is considered in regards to developments. Russia stated that the flight was bombed, exciting fears of terrorism. Afterwards, there aren't any more developments yet. Currently, it's at the bottommost. Shall we declare it ongoing again? George Ho (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's done it's time now we have confirmation of what the cause was. Let it slide off. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "confirms" was changed to "states". --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any further determination will likely takes months (it took several to confirm what took down that MA flight over Ukraine). The story for all purposes is now stale and/or part of the larger issue of these various terrorist acts between Paris, etc. (though no linkage has been made at this time that I have seen). --M ASEM (t) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting a little tired of this now. The Kremlin confirmed it.  If you doubt the Kremlin, then you should doubt the White House and Downing Street etc.  This is seriously becoming a drain on resources responding to each and every nuance of your posts.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Move on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article in question has just one substantial edit in the past week, nearly all the activity has been vandalism reversion and minor wording fixes. And that substantial edit:  is not any new information, but a retrospective discussion over claims Russia had made initially in the investigation.  There has not been any substantial new information added to the article to justify its inclusion in any part of ITN, and the volume of new information is far too low for Ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Pfizer deal

 * Support, major businees transaction. sst✈(discuss) 14:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support, It is just a merge rather than a buyout (the total value of the merged companies to be $160B, as opposed that much trading hands), but that said, this is a major deal in the pharma side. Pfizer's article has a few cns, but otherwise both articles seem ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality of Allergan. I thought about nominating this earlier today, until I looked at the article and saw that it doesn't actually talk about the company. It has bits about its corporate history and a list of its product and nothing else. -- KTC (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose because nothing has happened yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Time we had a discussion about this kind of thing. Not that I disagree with you, but how many times have we seen massive (mega-massive) business deals bummed out of ITN because they haven't signed, sealed and delivered the bottom line.  I'll start something, hopefully you and the others around these parts can contribute so we get some guidance we can follow in the future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM, Ping me when you get the discussion started. I'll add my two cents. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * it's on the talk page now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose we just went through this with Heinzkraft, whose merger nominated here as a "big deal" was followed within a few weeks by buyouts and layoffs. Consolidation during bad economic times is not the same thing as, say, the creation of Verizon as an integrated mobile, internet and full-service phone carrier with the merger of some local service baby bells and GTE.  There's no promise of synergy here (i.e., no news) just cost cutting and tax avoision. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is news now and should be posted now; the actual transaction will likely not be in the news(as I state on TRM's discussion) 331dot (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per SSTflyer. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - this is a huge merger with potential impact on the pricing and development of common medicines used by hundreds of millions of people. -Zanhe (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - seems like a significant corporate development, plus the tax inversion angle and opposition to it from Clinton/Sanders is interesting. As to timing, I think a useful rule of thumb could be "post it when it's in the news" ...... which is currently. MurielMary (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And be sure to cover the nakedly anti-American reasoning behind their proposed transfer of their HQ to Ireland. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Pfizer article looks ok, but more of an update about the merger and criticism of tax inversion would be helpful; ITN is supposed to be providing an in-depth look at such news, which this is not. I oppose the inclusion of the inadequate article on Allergan as a bolded target, but don't think that necessarily a barrier to posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Added an alt-blurb - Allergan's Irishness is as important as Pfizer's Americanness. Smurrayinchester 12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant corporate development. huge merger.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked I have unbolded Allergan as a target article, per above comments. Tweaked the blurb to state the deal itself is worth that amount. Still more than the AB InBev and SABMiller agreement we posted last month. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted with alt blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship

 * Support - Looks like it's one of the events that are usually posted according to In the news/Recurring items, anyway.  Zappa  24  Mati   04:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose – Large chunks of unsourced material throughout the article, which is predominantly made of giant tables and lists. Notably, most of the rule changes (which I assume are a notable aspect of the series) is mostly devoid of sources. Others might be verifiable through the wikilinks of drivers or the specific races, but there are dozens that need verification. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like some of the rule changes (particularly in the preseason section) have sources, but they were placed in a way that made it seem like they didn't.  NFL  is  Awesome   (ZappaOMati) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Commendable updates to the article by were made, including the addition of race summaries. Meets ITN criteria now and should be good to go (though I would suggest restructuring to place prose closer to the top...just a personal nitpick). Pinging  to give the article another look through and for another set of eyes to verify. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since he missed the first eleven races of the season, should his injury be mentioned? - –  Nascar1996  ( talk • cont ) 05:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be worth mentioning, along with Jeff Gordon retiring.  Dough   4872   06:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as article doesn't currently meet ITN criteria - article is largely lists and tables (criteria state update must include prose) and significant amounts are unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to have been updated, looks okay to me. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Adding "Kyle Busch won the championship", an image and some stats is an insufficient update for ITN. Ping me if someone adds a season summary, or at least a final race summary to the article. It would also help if someone sourced the pre-existing prose. Fuebaey (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can go around today and add sources to the article, most of the stuff is easy to source.  Dough   4872   13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit better now. A few unsourced statements, but not enough for me to stand in the way of this being posted. Kudos to Dough4872 for the summary. Fuebaey (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - of little importance outside the US, at least we should restrict ourself to sport events that have at least some global significance. 87.154.223.35 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, and NBA Finals are featured on the main page every year, so I see no reason why the NASCAR Sprint Cup championship shouldn't as it is one of the biggest spectator sports in the United States, and also has international following.  Dough   4872   15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From the instructions: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the same, let's not be silly. 93.215.90.237 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only not the same because it's an event you personally aren't interested in. Otherwise, it's exactly what the rules tell you is an invalid reason to oppose an article being posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending an update with a text summary of the season. 1 point winning margin when there is a 5000+ total seems unusual. Nergaal (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the nature of the Chase for the Sprint Cup.  Dough   4872   16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am in the process of writing a sourced season summary.  Dough   4872   17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. The article is very poor, just a jumbled collection of tables and unreferenced bullet lists.  It's not the quality of article we should be featuring at ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourced season summary has been added.  Dough   4872   21:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Recurring event, and the article has been updated. –  Nascar1996  ( talk • cont ) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The recurring event is discussed in WT:ITN/R; place your comments there for either preservation or removal. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ko wins LPGA Player of the Year Award, youngest ever winner
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Oppose - We virtually never post individual sporting awards in any sport - the only one I can think of right now is the FIFA Ballon d'Or. I don't think that being the youngest winner is interesting enough or exceptional enough to justify posting this one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Query to there is also a current nomination for Kyle Busch's motorsports win, isn't that an individual sporting award? Please clarify your point. MurielMary (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's winning a championship. This golf award is honorary, to celebrate the accumulated success over the course of a year, it's nothing more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But isn't there an equivalent Driver of the Year award given to the driver with the most wins/points earned? Do we post that? Rhodesisland (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above. We practically never post individual sporting awards, including much better known awards.  This doesn't equate to winning an individual sporting competition/trophy.  "Youngest to win" is really only an interesting enough tidbit to mention in passing for something that would get posted anyway (i.e. "Jane Doe wins the Generic Sports Championship, becoming the youngest athlete ever to do so.")  However, this could be a great DYK hook. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above and noting that we wouldn't post the men's equivalent award for the same reason. However, there is potential to spin off the list of winners into its own page and take that through the featured list process into "today's featured list" on the main page, or to get Ko's article to GA status and into DYK that way. BencherliteTalk 10:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above reasons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as with the Kachin jade mine disaster below, on another day I might have supported this, but with the quantity of ITN-worthy items right now I think there is no space for this. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close Thanks for the responses on this nom. I suggest that the agreement to exclude individual sporting awards is included in the ITN/C criteria so that it's clear for new editors (currently not mentioned there) MurielMary (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


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

[Posted] Argentine presidential election

 * Support. Easily. But could the blurb be a little longer, please? --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The second candidate, Daniel Scioli, has accepted his defeat. He's talking in the TV right now, the media may take a bit to reflect it. But the outcome can be considered confirmed. 68% of the votes have been counted. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Notability is obvious, and the article is in very good shape. sst✈(discuss) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * comment legislative elections are ITNR too so we should conbine the blurb with the outcome there s well.Lihaas (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that make it a very long blurb? Besides, the legislative elections were held a month ago, alongside the first presidential elections. The delay is because Argentina uses a ballotage system, so there was a second election last sunday, which is the one reported here. Cambalachero (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Important story involving a big shift in Argentine politics. Jus  da  fax   08:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll bold Macri's article as well. Someone update the photo, please. --Tone 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Kachin jade mine disaster

 * Support in principle Massive loss of life. But article is one sentence &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support And I've expanded the article a bit to support this. --M ASEM (t) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - On another day I might have supported this, but with so many worthy and more significant news items recently I have to oppose this. Banedon (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the last new story was posted 2 days ago, and many of the others on the cusp of being stale, this seems like a poor reason. (particularly that none of the other present stories in the nomination process are related to major loss of human life). --M ASEM (t) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the items featured right now, I feel that the Paris attacks obviously must stay in some form because of its ongoing visibility. The bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268 is somewhat tied to the Paris attacks in terms of visibility, and the ongoing intervention in Syria is also a major geopolitical event worldwide. The salmon story, the diamond story and the Mali hostage story have only been featured for a few days, and there are three more nominations above this one two of which are ITN/R. Therefore ITN is very short on space right now, and something has to be sacrificed; I feel this is the best option. Banedon (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bonkers. The death of nearly at least 100 people in an industrial accident isn't ITN-worthy?  I guess it's because they're not Westerners.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So much for AGF? Banedon (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So much for logical opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Landslide causing 90 deaths, definitely notable. sst✈(discuss) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; it is in line with our usual death toll criteria for such events. There also seem to be allegations that jade mining corporations might have breached safety standards. I have added a little to the article, but more work is still needed to expand. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unfortunately these kind of disasters happen all too frequently. 87.154.223.35 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - 100, possibly 200 deaths is massive for an industrial accident. EamonnPKeane (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind: this wasn't an industrial accident. Most of those killed were scavenging poor people that lived near this giant pile of earth, searching for pieces of jade to sell. --18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that these scores of deaths wouldn't have been caused if it weren't for the mining company's disposal methods: i.e. an industrial accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that at this point, which company(s) and their role, if any, in this, is yet known, so it is difficult to classify it as an industrial accident. Speculation is strongly pointing to the various mining companies for bad, unsafe practices, and the gov't there is going to sort this out. But as noted in latest articles, people were also warned not to live there due to risk of landslide but chose to do so anyway, so it could be a lot of other related issues. (Please note I still support posting of this, regardless of how it's called. I just was trying to make it clear that the story it's not like a workplace accident that most would associate with a "industrial accident'.) --M ASEM (t) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - massive loss of life in a politically sensitive region of Burma/Myanmar. Article is a bit on the short side, but decent enough for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per reasoning of TRM and others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The Russian statement on bomb conclusion has gotten old...er. We have newer blurbs, so either keep the current photo, use the fish photo (File:Salmo salar GLERL 1.jpg) as replacement, or no photo at all. I could not propose the big gem photo because it is unfree. I wanted to take this to WP:ERRORS, but I don't see it as an error... at all. George Ho (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment that's not exactly an ideal replacement, it's not really getting the gist of the story across. No photo at all is silly as we have (pictured) in the blurb so that takes care of any uncertainty as to which hook is related to the image.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave it be, it's not harming anyone.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna withdraw this due to the Argentinian elections nomination with a photo. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


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

[Closed] Malta wins Junior Eurovision

 * Comment. Generally youth competitions like this don't do well here; is there some notable reason to post this one? 331dot (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a cover of Aretha Franklin's "Think". I could support an original song if it were an actual innovation.  This is not. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the articles you are opposing? She did not compete with "Think", she won her national final with that just to find the appropriate singer, and then participated in JESC with an original song. Facts... get it straight.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the meaning of "Chukunyere won the live national final in Malta, enabling her to represent Malta, with the Aretha Franklin song 'Think'" and have withdrawn my oppose on that basis. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose posting this youth competition; competitions limited by age(this one is 10-15) do not represent a top level of competition in the career; we don't typically post youth sporting events for that reason. Unless there is something very unusual about this event, I don't see right now why it should be treated differently. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia really, hopefully not as much as a joke as the main competition, but hardly worthy of main page inclusion in a global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, stop nominating junior competitions. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above reasons ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Two Bangladeshi politicians are hanged for war crimes

 * support - historical significant. Article standard is OK as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * support this seems a legit notorious capital punishment. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - shouldn't it be "hanged" rather than "hung"? --Bcp67 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the blurb, there's no reason to post an altblurb for a grammatical correction. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Chowdhury's article is weak for a seven-term MP, with a political career spanning 30 years. It doesn't even explain his role during the war (not the indictments). Fuebaey (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an RD nomination looking to prove the notability of the man, this is a warcrimes nomination. The update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support either RDs/blurbs, but improvements may be needed per Fuebaey. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready supported and updated as a warcrimes execution. The nomination has nothing to do with RD, and each target article meets the ITN update criteria. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – good enough. sst✈(discuss) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was coming to post this, but some recent edits by a redlinked editor to Chowdhury have left me wondering if bias has been introduced; what pulled me up is 'Throughout his political career, Salahuddin became the centre of controversy several times with his vulgar remarks and actions.' referenced to a source that does not appear to use the word 'vulgar'. I don't have time to check. Also is his surname Salahuddin or Chowdhury? Both are used. The same editor has also added material to Mojaheed. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted much of what was added to the Chowdhury article, which was poorly written and sourced (indeed, Chowdhury was his surname). I removed some overkill, but some of the refs appear to link to front page news from 2011 which is no longer current. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am removing the ready tag, there is too much linkrot to support many of the claims, and editing by those more familiar with the case seems aimed more at POV than article quality. Both articles need a good going over, preferably by someone with local expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - significant news. -Zanhe (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 WBSC Premier12

 * Oppose on article quality. No prose synopsis of the tournament, or even of the final game. An article of tables is not of sufficient quality to post on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know. I'm just about to start adding game summaries. Would you change to support on that improvement? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't think of another reason to support anything. Either you've cleaned up an article to be main page ready or you haven't.  Any other consideration is mostly irrelevant.  If it just happened, and it has a quality article, there's no valid reason to oppose it, except "I think I know what people who aren't me should find important, and I feel the need to tell them all the time".  I don't believe that's my job.  If the article is good enough, and this is a current event, I generally would support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I wasn't sure if your oppose was based solely on quality or also the event itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's now two paragraphs on the championship game, and some sentences on all of the games of the knockout stage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to weak support. I'd like to see more along these lines, but it's the bare minimum.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be adding more tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this does not seem to be covered significantly in the "Western" World. Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Yahoo! Sports, CBS Sports, WaPo, another WaPo, MLB.com, Baseball America, Chicago Sun-Times (Those aren't all links from the championship game, but they are from the ongoing coverage.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also not relevant if coverage is limited in "the Western world" as long as it is covered somewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with 331dot, although we often don't post new sports competitions. In any case, CBS, Cuba, and the MLB have seen fit to cover this in their Saturday editions. So count me as a Weak Support. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Article's quality is good, but oppose on the competition's notability. Unlike the World Baseball Classic, active Major Leaguers did not participate. --61.245.25.3 (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This and the WBC are currently the two major international baseball competitions. One includes major leaguers while the other doesn't. I don't think that should make one more notable than the other, but YMMV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability - 250 people watched one of the quarter-finals? Hmm.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I... did not notice that. All I can say in response is that many games, including the championship, had over 40k in attendance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides the Final, only the home team's semi and bronze final had 40k. If Japan, Taiwan or South Korea wasn't playing then attendance was 119(!) to 1,200 the entire tournament. And the Final had the nearest foreign country playing (South Korea understrength national baseball team). The "All-World team" has three dudes that are red links! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kim Young-sam

 * Comment - His entire career section (the rationale for RD) is unsourced, if anyone needs improvement pointers. Fuebaey (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've sourced most of it. But there's a 20 year gap between when he was first elected as a politician and his party leadership, as well as nothing after his Presidency (17 years). His article over at ko is massive, if anyone can read Korean and feels like translating. Fuebaey (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, although political career section might need some refs. Brandmeistertalk  18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements that are underway to the page and fixing of sourcing issues; clearly very important to Korean politics aside from the importance as head of state(having been first civilian leader in 30 years). 331dot (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - pending some improvements. clearly a important and significant politician.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on Article Improvements Clearly important but needs better sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 20:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I only support an RD. While a major world leader and clearly RD, the impact is not as great to merit a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Brandmeister, 331dot, Capitalistroadster, BabbaQ, and Masem: I added blurbs, but the nomination is still RD/blurb. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as in the news or recent death. Article has improved referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Former head of state, I've seen the news of his death fairly prominently, and the article seems to be good enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Paku Alam IX

 * Oppose as it's a stub, I'm not really clear on the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a Social Studies person, but was this person a sitting ruler? Ruler of Pakualaman, in central Java, Indonesia, according to our page on him. But I can't tell from the Pakualaman page if it is independent enough for Alam to be considered a sitting "head of state". Of course there is the whole stub thing, too. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This doesn't look like a national leader (aka a head of state), nor is there any specific notability really clear here. --M ASEM (t) 03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator, User:Erik Fastman, might want to give an explicit rationale explaining the reason why the subject meets ITN criteria, along the lines of other recent RD nominations. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Former leader of a tiny subdivision, no notability. any thoughts? sst✈(discuss) 07:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Paku Alam IX as prince of Pakualaman has reigned over a considerably smaller area then Hamengkubuwana X (whom I'd probably vote to include, as the only reigning monarch in Indonesia who actually has legal recognition and power). Definitely RD material in Indonesia, but not for a worldwide audience. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Kitanoumi Toshimitsu

 * Support: Top of field in Japanese Sumo wrestling and management. Article looks decent. Fuebaey (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly very important to Sumo.  Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Before posting, can we get a citation for the "fighting style" section? Otherwise, this would be ready to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find an English citation for it (I can't read Japanese). Since it doesn't affect his overall achievement, I've commented it out. Fuebaey (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Top within his field of Sumo. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We've got two bare supports with no rationale given, and no update of the article, although the update section of the nomination template was removed. Can the supporters do the work, rather than deleting and avoiding it? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're reading the correct article? The one above does state when he died and the cause of his death. The article also covers the main points of his life (his wrestling career, stable ownership, the controversies during his administration of Sumo, death). If you happen to find a reference to his fighting style, feel free to add it, but I don't believe this shouldn't be posted due to a lack of trivia. Fuebaey (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what updates you require, Medeis? I thought we had long since waived the update requirement for RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The three-prose paragraph update requirement has been abandoned. If there's no update at all showing the subject's importance it should not be posted, and that was the case when I objected.  That's not even to mention the fact that Nergaal and BaabaQ's (as usual) votes are simply votes, not rationales for posting. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Three paragraphs for a developed article seems a bit overkill to me. ITN only requires that, as a minimum, for new articles or sub-stubs. From recent experience, a basic RD update is a sourced date/cause of death and no obvious omissions from their life. I think the lead adequately summarises his importance, though you may need to click on links if you're not familiar with sumo. Fuebaey (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 November Bamako hotel shooting

 * Support notability Unfortunately so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, sadly. Agree with nom's comments. Will unfold and develop. MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait 80 people have been reportedly freed so far. Brandmeistertalk  12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. Sca (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for stability, but support Even if the hostages are all freed without harm, this is a significant story. As I read this now, the raid to rescue the hostages is ongoing, so give it a few hours. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - that it is developing is a positive, not negative, in my opinion. Banedon (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In journalism, "developing" means just that – it's continuing to play out; the outcome isn't clear yet. The term isn't meant to be negative. Sca (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean it's a positive for posting it to ITN, not negative. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Though the story is developing, I think we know enough and the article in question is of good enough quality that we can post now, and update the blurb when the story develops further. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted with updated numbers from article. Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness as needed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support after posting - article is ready and the situation is great enough to justify posting .--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update Can an administrator please change tense at the front page so the story will read "were taken hostages" instead of are. Our readers shouldn't get the impression that this is ongoing stil. Iselilja (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at the wording, as we generally use present tense, but I agree this is confusing; I've also updated the numbers per current reports. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For future reference, when I said "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness", what I meant by that was "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness" I hope that helps!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move November 2015 Paris attacks to ongoing?
If the newest nomination of some genetically modified salmon is approved, what will happen to blurbs older than the November 2015 Paris attacks? Now with recent arrests in Europe related to the attacks, shall we feature the event as ongoing? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It'll still be the third item in the news box. The Myanmar election will get pushed - and that's definitely stale by now. Arrests and raids are footnotes to the main story, quite frankly. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No prejudice against moving it to ongoing when it's ready to roll off the bottom. There's still several stories to go, so I don't know that we need to discuss it now.  When it is the bottommost story, it would be either admins discretion to move it to ongoing, subject to community consensus if the community were to disagree with it.  I suppose we could have the discussion early, but I don't see the need; it is hard to predict if the article will still be being actively updated when the time comes to make the decision. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Agree with Jayron. In its various ramifications it's still a top story. Sca (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also agree with ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, could not be a more premature notion. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Change your mind, Abductive? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support (in principle) that this be moved to ongoing when it would normally age off the page due to newer stories. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jayron, Smurray, Cyclonebiskit: The story is now bottommost. Change your minds? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, if an Administrator does not decide on their own to move it to Ongoing, then we can have the discussion. Unless and until that happens, the situation has not changes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen ITN have 8 or even 9 entries. The current 4 entries is on the really low side. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I already asked a reinsertion of other older blurbs, but that's in the user talk page. I can ask again at another talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we had 9 entries, we'd have an absurd amount of white space in the leftmost column. See In_the_news/Administrator_instructions.  If you wish to change the policy and require a certain number of blurbs regardless of other design considerations, please start an RFC and get people to support such a policy.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have squeezed in the diamond item without removing the Paris attacks; balance looks ok at most widths on my monitor, but then it did before the removal of the old 5th item. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @(Again) Jayron, Smurray, Cyclonebiskit: We are getting newer nominations, which will push out the event. What about now? George Ho (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Genetically modified animal deemed fit for human consumption

 * Quote: "It's the first genetically engineered animal for food that's been approved anywhere in the world". Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending updates to the second article – (THIS IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT FEEDS ITS COUNTRY CANCER)  If it's indeed the first GMA approved definitely a support from me. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Plants have been approved before, but not livestock. Nergaal (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - it may be approved only by the FDA, but what the FDA says is widely followed worldwide. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support First animal approval is an interesting enough development. Maybe world hunger can be solved in our lifetimes. Mamyles (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. There is enough food, some is thrown out without reaching a hungry person, some makes people fat. I don't know if one only is a minor contribution or not. 2. Eating animals is a horrific waste. You could make 10 pounds of bread for the amount of grain it takes to make 1 pound of meat. The livestock I believe eat more food than the people. There's too much farmland in the world, rainforests and endangered species habitats are being destroyed for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unfortunately, media markets all over the Western world have sung the praises of meat for decades, and it will be difficult to get them to break their old habits, regardless of how much they may be made aware of how their love for meat is contributing to catastrophic climate change.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't solely a lack of food, it's that food is hard to grow in regions that need it. One use of GMO is to allow high-yield food to be grown in places that would not otherwise be tenable, such as semi-arid regions of Africa. Another is to make food more nutritious, such as Golden Rice, which alone could save a million lives yearly. Mamyles (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Specifying the country name might be a good idea. Isa (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support interesting and notable development. Agree with Isanae, could add "the U.S." to the blurb i.e. "approved by the U.S. FDA" MurielMary (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; a notable development in this industry, even if they have yet to find many places willing to sell it. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Story clearly important. First article (the one on the salmon) is ready to go. The genetically modified food one has a lot of CNs, but I think we can post if the only target is the salmon one. --M ASEM (t) 15:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Update: Paris shooting/bombing

 * Oppose because of the blurb suggested: "suspected mastermind"/"massive raid"? Are we suddenly The Sun?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly because of the "suspected" aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose my own thoughts before reading TRM's comment were exactly "suspected mastermind"/"massive raid"? It might be time for this to go to ongoing soon, but certainly not to go all tabloid on a patsy with a $10,000 budget. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A patsy with a $10,000 budget – Huh? Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the figure I heard on the radio yesterday. The Mail says less than 7,000 pounds and quotes experts: Experts say the costs involved were a fraction of the £85,000 used in the foiled plot to attack U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz in 2002 or the £48,000 price tag of the suicide and car bombings that killed more than 200 in Bali in 2002. A patsy is someone who is assigned the blame for actions arranged by others. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what a patsy is. I don't see how the fact that this was a monetarily inexpensive terrorist operation in any way lessens its signficance. Sca (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then "huh" is the wrong word choice. Next time make it clear you do understand but that you don't agree, and I won't waste my time in providing a good faith explanation. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As a compound modifier, good-faith should be hyphenated. Everyone knows what a patsy is. Explaining it struck me as condescending and sarcastic.
 * Sca (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never heard "huh?" to mean anything other than lack of comprehension or belief. I gave a simple explanation of what a patsy was because your "huh?" seemed to imply you either didn't understand or believe what I said; not simple disagreement. Taking your comments as made in good faith is the diametric opposite of patronizing you. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, "huh" referred to the entire phrase, not to "patsy" per se. But let's bury the hatchet. Sca (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above: I was at a gym yesterday where they had both CNN and Fox news on, and while CNN was going over broad manners dealing with the Paris attacks, Fox was engaged in focusing on this raid (with the same sensationalist language) and scaremongers with the claimed video found. The stark difference is pretty summed up above. Given they also caught 8 suspects and are going through the location with a fine-tooth comb (eg they aren't saying if they found another cell), I'm not yet sure if an ongoing is needed but that remains open. --M ASEM (t) 21:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the main news sights I've seen today use "suspected mastermind," but some use "top suspect" or "chief suspect," and I'd be fine with either of those. Fine to drop "massive" if it makes you queasy (although from what I've read, it was a big operation with much gunfire). Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'm sure ISIS prefers the connotations of "mastermind", it's more accurate to call him the "alleged ringleader". That said, many analysts suspect he was despatched to the French organizing job by higher-ups. Oppose replacing current blurb. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - That is quite possibly one of the worst blurbs I've ever read. It's subjective, clunky, and really there is no point in usurping the blurb that is currently posted in ITN for the sake of this cable news-esque hot take.--WaltCip (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm revising my vote on the basis that most of the sensationalism in the blurb actually was struck out, but I still do not believe it is worth dropping an ITN event from the ticker. As Sca says, the difference in connotation between "chief suspect" and "suspected mastermind" is an ocean's width, but until we get all the facts we ought not to jump to conclusions about what this is.--WaltCip (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand by my nomination. I watched two news shows Thursday evening (U.S. time), PBS's Newshour and Deutsche Welle's (necessarily Europe-centric) English-language news program. Both led with this story. That means journalists in responsible positions here and in Europe judged this the No. 1 story in the world on Nov. 19, 2015. (DW used the admitted cliché "in a hail of gunfire." The News Hour called Abaaoud "the ringleader," and outlined his activity in 'Islamic State.') This story is definitely in the news, and indeed at the top of the news. Sca (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I can't understand the rationale behind the oppose votes. The blurb reads OK to me, although I'd still prefer something like "Abdelhamid Abaaoud, chief suspect in the Paris attacks, is killed in a raid by French police." This does not have to mean a current blurb be dropped; it can simply replace the blurb on the Paris attacks. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blurb edited to remove portions previously stricken through. Death toll up to 130. Sca (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ambivalent Target article is already highlighted on the main page. Not opposed, but not supporting either.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This twist in the story is already noted in the Paris Attack blurb, which is still on the ITN ticker.  The story here is the larger attack, which involved multiple perpetrators and victims, and re-focusing the blurb on a single person gives undue weight.  Readers starving for up-to-the-minute details on this event can click on the event's link in ITN, or go to any news site on the internet.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose To me it's part of the bigger story of the Paris attacks, not a new story on its own. MurielMary (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Footnote of the original story. It's nothing like Bin Laden, who was hunted down for ten years after his plot &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone interested in fairly detailed background on Abaaoud can read about him here. Sca (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Karowe AK6 diamond

 * Support in principle, but the article needs to be way more than one short paragraph. Needs a lot of work. Significant find and sure to break the record for most-expensive diamond whenever it's eventually sold (probably years away). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. A great story for a change, but needs some more content. --Tone 14:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the article is way to short, but it's just been dug up so there is only the press release to go on so far. More will be added as soon as available. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - a once-in-a-lifetime event. Banedon (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Although now we'll probably find another one next week, rendering 's argument invalid. :) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support notable and interesting. I've suggested an alt blurb which omits the unimportant point of the company's ownership. --LukeSurlt c 16:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Quality is sufficient to post, but I agree that it should be longer. Perhaps there are more details about the mine it was found in. Mamyles (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, biggest diamond found in 110 years. Also, there's an image in the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would have marked this ready, but it doesn't quite meet the three full prose paragraph size requirement for new articles. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is still too short to post; it is marked as a stub, and rightly so. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - post, biggest diamond found. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lord, BabbaQ, do you not understand that you are supposed to give a rationale why the claim is important enough to post? You are even wrong on the facts this time, it is not the biggest diamond found.  Luckfully, the article has been expanded and posted, but "support because I support votes" do not help. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your tape recorder is stuck. Time to change tapes.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the article length seems to be on the ok side. Nergaal (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Small expansion since my last comment seems adequate. I have shortened the blurb to one line to avoid having to remove the Paris attacks. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Mal Whitfield

 * Support Multiple gold medals at the Olympics is as good a measure of "top of one's field" as there could be, and the otherwise storied life adds flavor. Article seems okay.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the IP, award-winning multiple Olympic gold medallist, certainly significant in the field.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - little notability and minor impact on his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.77.54 (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Article quality is sufficient, significance is established by facts in the article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that historically we have waited for at least 4 supports before posting an item like this before it is a day old. I neither disagree with the posting nor blame the poster, but I think maintaining the four supports precedent is a good one.  That being said, Post-Posting Support. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll just point out that WP:BURO is much older a precedent than even that one. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I said you werrn't a burro, Jayron. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If my borough had burrows for burros, it'd just be a town of assholes... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] U.S. National Book Award

 * Oppose - Since it's a national award, I don't think it's international enough for ITN. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We have all sorts of national awards, both US and non-US(see the film section of the ITNR list). Requiring everything to be international would leave very little to post to ITN.  The question is does this have notable news coverage, which can and should include international coverage; the nominator has already given one UK source about this award. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am leaning support but I would wonder if SusanLesch could explain a little more about the award, such as its prestige. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't you just read the article National Book Award? Banedon (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am interested in what the nominator has to say. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Found a German news story. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN does list the Man Booker Prize as recurring so I thought maybe you'd make room. [revised] SusanLesch (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Major book award. Just wish we could get Neil Shusterman in the blurb too! Rhodesisland (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd be opposed to putting these awards up every year, but the Guardian article does suggest unusual factors in play this year (and ITN has been slow with so much European news being Paris attack aftermath). The problem is the suggested target (bold) article does no more than list the books and, as there is no year-by-year article for this award, it is hard to see how this might be rectified without undue focus on this year's awards. Could an article be created for Fortune Smiles, and the two books be made the targets? Or if Fortune Smiles is less notable (as seems perhaps the case), just focus it on Between the World and Me, which has an existing article of reasonable quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because award is non-controversial and National Book Award related articles look good. Remove the pipe from 'National Book Award' in the blurb because it is confusing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "~"? We've already got the Pulitzer, and one of the awardees to this highly variable prize isn't even linked in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "~" is part of my signature. I didn't have anything to add beyond support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the books or the authors should be the targets of the blurb, the current target, the list, is weak and just notes these wins in passing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on Alt Blurb, provided that the actual award page is linked in the blurb, not the list of winners - it's just a list and gives no information on the significance of the award. MurielMary (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor award compared to Literature Nobel or Booker which we post. Fourth literary award (and at least second from US in the same field) looks redundant to post. Brandmeistertalk  12:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – On the fence. Does "National" make it only of U.S. interest? Sca (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the "national" part is not a problem. The real notability of the prize and its winners is.  The prize could be called the "Not to be Posted at ITN Prize" and we would still post it if it were important enough.  In this case there are bigger prizes and we are simply not slow on news. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We post the UK-based Booker Prize. Is that regarded as significantly more, uh ... significant? Sca (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Those ain't horses up there, sonny, they're burros. Don't ask me why they're there. Sca (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See previous section. Not that it makes any further sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, previous nomination. I'll just sep it out, fulfilling my community service obligation for today. Sca (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: Why is the Booker Prize more important (which it must be if it's recurring?)? Our article about it is almost completely trivia. That said, our article about this prize is almost all bureaucratic details (and why did James Patterson win a lifetime award?) Neither one looks very important. I might withdraw this nom pretty soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 27th APEC Summit

 * Oppose "Travel impact" and "Homeless people"? μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are meant to verify the event is happening. Hollyckuhno (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that people should read the article. Fully one third of it is a criticism section, with a section on travel impact and a section on homeless people.  These are given a huge ammount of attention for such and article.  There's also the gem that: "This will be the first APEC meeting for Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau since their inaugurations on 15 September 2015 and 4 November 2015, respectively."  Of course any summit will have new attendees.  The article also needs a total going over for grammar and idiom.  There's a statement that people "took on" social medial to protest.  I assume what is meant was that they "took to" social media to protest, not that they sued socioal media, or engaged in denial of service attacks against it. There's no demonstration of any sort of major impact, and the article is not in the shape needed to be featured at ITN if there were. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ongoing is meant for events where the article gets incremental updates with things that individually might not merit posting . It isn't meant for events in progress unless new newsworthy developments will come out of this every day, which seems unlikely for this type of meeting.331dot (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The event itself is newsworthy. An economic meeting that is attended by economic leaders that represents 50-60 percent of the world's economy is of international interest. I am not nominating this as a stand alone headline, I only intend this to be included on the Ongoing events section as to inform Wikipedia users of an international affair that is taking place on this very day. Hollyckuhno (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that it should be a stand alone headline, and with this type of event we usually note the conclusion of the event, along with anything notable coming out of it. Ongoing is not meant merely to post events in progress, but ones where the article would have incremental updates, as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on procedure. As the above comments show, this is not what Ongoing is for (although I wouldn't blame someone for being mistaken).  This nom would have better luck as a standalone headline, but as the G20 nom below shows, merely being an international gathering is perhaps not enough for the support of most.128.214.200.219 (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing because that's not what ongoing is for (it's not a "what's happening in the world today" slot). Unless and until there's an actual story to post, then this can't make ITN. I note in passing that the "see also" section reveals that 11 of the 20 leaders met last week through G20 and 13 of them will be at another regional summit next week, so these sorts of high-level meetings are really rather routine. BencherliteTalk 11:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, this is either full blurb per ITNR (or ITNC at this rate if these pointless junkets keep getting shunned at ITNC) or it's nothing. Not ongoing at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM. Sca (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Jonah Lomu

 * Support RD tag blurb - Top of his field. Article in good shape. Not so sure if he's major enough for a blurb. He is certainly notable for a blurb. Shaped the sport's industry. I was about to nominate him but you beat me to it mate! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (edit-conflicted while filling in the template). Really shocked to hear this news. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - but use "NZ linking to the New Zealand national rugby union team instead of All Blacks...some people will not get the reference..-- Stemoc 00:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Revised it. Donnie Park (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - exactly what the nom said: I don't know much rugby, even to the point that I can only name one non-Australian player - Lomu. Unquestionably belongs in RD (assuming the sad news is true). Just clarifying: strong support for RD, even as the article stands. Neutral on having an ITN blurb: I will defer to people with more knowledge about rugby or NZ. Adpete (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Article needs work (lots of unreferenced material for which no doubt references can be found) but obvious support for RD. Not sure on blurb but he was one of the biggest names in rugby union (the BBC report I'm listening to while typing this said that "many regarded him as the greatest rugby player of all time") and this is a very big story. BencherliteTalk 01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs improvement Many paragraphs are unsourced. Meets notability as New York Times in 2014 called him "one of the most recognized rugby players in the world."—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. His name was known well beyond the sport. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD on article improvements, Oppose blurb - Notability for RD is of no question. As for a blurb - the fact that for the last ten years he's had dialysis and other issues related to his kidneys means that while this was a sudden death, it wasn't wholly unexpected, and his importance otherwise to the world at large is not sufficient for a blurb. Article is in terrible shape though for posting, most of his career sections unsourced. --M ASEM (t) 01:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Happy with blurb or RD. Probably the only rugby union player to ever transcend the sport (think the equivalent of Michael Jordan in basketball). The article is in good enough condition to be on the main page -- I'd like to see it improved, but it's acceptable to me. -- Shudde  talk 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either when the article is in shape. I think he's one of only about two non-Brit rugby player I could name (and the other one is a Frenchman whose name I'm not completely certain of). Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly meets the criteria; this even was in the news to a degree where I live.  I think a blurb is fine here, given he is described as a "legend" in most stories that I perused on this. Many including PM Key have commented on the death, and the possibility of a state funeral has been discussed. We also don't post much about rugby or New Zealand. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * well we posted about "NZ" winning the "rugby" world cup 16 days ago :P ..-- Stemoc 03:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question. Is this nomination for RD or for a full blurb? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Choose whatever fits best, Rhodesisland. This nomination is open-minded. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case....Rhodesisland (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not ready I've pulled the ready tag. I tagged specific sections in the article that have no or need more refs, and a few personal data sentences that should be sourced.  Otherwise, I think this is close.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD on article improvements, Oppose blurb. Ditto Masem. Rhodesisland (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb, outstanding All Black and figure in international rugby as well. MurielMary (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As a New Zealander I would love to see a blurb, but as a Wikipedian I don't think he quite reaches that level. AIR corn (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aircorn expresses my sentiments too. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - major figure in rugby, known worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's just funny how someone who transformed the global oil industry is not notable enough for RD, but for a rugby player even a blurb is considered. Shows nicely what systematic bias is. Obviously oppose blurb and RD, it's Rugby, not anything of real importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.67.96 (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people do consider rugby important, like the Prime Minister of New Zealand and many readers. If you feel other stories should be posted, it is up to you to convince people of it.  From the available information it wasn't clear to me how the oil industry was "transformed" by that individual.  331dot (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then read the article or something on the web. Clearly most of those who opposed did not even do that, because they were not even aware that the guy was the oil minister of Saudi Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.77.54 (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Full blurb, per all the supports above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD No more blurb inflation please! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SS sport-transformingly famous all over the world. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, strong oppose blurb. Significant figure in rugby, but he had long retired and his death has no widespread implications. Raising this to a blurb would make a mockery of even having the RD section, which is where this should definitely appear. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD after improvement, oppose blurb - Notability is most definitely not in question here. However, there are still some issues with referencing. There is no need for a full blurb, the death is sad, but not unexpected. Fgf10 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. Only one section is still thin on references but I see there's constant work on the article so this should be fixed soon. I agree, RD is the case here. --Tone 11:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb - He died at an unusually young age and he's at the top of his field. Those two factors alone should qualify him for a blurb. I don't want to hear anything about a Mandela standard after the last few blurbs that have been posted. --WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He stopped playing rugby many years ago, so is no longer at the top of his field. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic, he's no longer at the top of his field because he's dead.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's absurd and certainly not necessary that the person had to be top of his field at the point of his or her death. Obviously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, that should be the distinguishing feature for blurbs. At the top of their field at the time of death, leading to major implications -> blurb. Had retired, declined in significance or was otherwise no longer at the top of their field, but had a significant historical impact -> RD. Lomu had not been one of the world's best rugby players for the last ~decade, so he falls into the latter category. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There were no implications when Thatcher died, she hadn't been PM for the decade or more before she died. She got a blurb.  Mandela died 14 years after being the top of his field.  He got a blurb.  Your logic isn't that ... logical.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I opposed a blurb for Thatcher, following the same reasoning (don't remember about Mandela, was probably posted before I commented). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of sports, I agree with Modest Genius. Examples would be Senna or more recently (but arguably) Bianchi. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes sportspeople at the top of their field different from politicians or film stars? Mandela, Thatcher and the guy from Fast and Furious were all blurbed, their deaths didn't have "major implications"....  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If a death had "major implications", it would have to be something like the assassination of a top political figure, and so would likely be an ongoing item rather than merely a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb death is entirely unexpected according to his family, it's all over my news, international notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unexpected but not unanticipated, given his medical condition (Nephrotic syndrome). In other words, they knew he would likely die young, but they didn't have any time frame to expect exactly when. --M ASEM (t) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And Thatcher and Mandela's deaths were likely too. I don't really see your point other than try to refute the indisputable fact that his family have stated that this sudden death was entirely unexpected.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb when it comes to rugby (which has an international audience larger than say American football) this guy is the biggest name - pretty much Tom Brady of the rugby union. Plus, the death seems completely unexpected since he was taking care of his health problems. Nergaal (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am counting 4 explicit blurb opposes and 10 explicit blurb supports + the nom. Nergaal (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Count doesn't determine consensus; arguments do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article still has a major section tagged as unreferenced, and there's several paragraphs throughout lacking references. While I don't feel it appropriate to pull this as an RD at this point (it's decently sourced, it's not like a complete BLP failure), this is a serious matter before this can be even be considered a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally finished a run through of the article. Not perfect, but hopefully satisfactory for the front page (I know it is already there, but it seemed conditional on further improvements). AIR corn (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it as RD That's why we instituted it: so news items don't get bogged down by notable deaths. With Thatcher and Mandela, the response was so major that a blurb was appropriate. For the German chancellor, I don't think it was. For him, I don't see the need either. Blurbs for deaths should be reserved for the most extreme cases. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Ebert, Robin Williams, Frederick Sanger, Hakimullah Mehsud, Aruna Shanbaug, Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Helmut Schmidt, Günter Grass ... All deaths of the aforementioned were posted as full blurbs. Granted, a good number of these postings were contentious and resulted in fiery discussions subsequent to the posting as to whether or not these warranted blurbs, but blurbs they were. I don't mind if you don't post this as a blurb, but for God's sake, drop the "Thatcher and Mandela" cliche because we all know that standard is so frequently flouted it doesn't even apply here. --WaltCip (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's more than I had thought were posted as blurbs since RD was implemented. I agree with Williams, since it was so high profile and surprising, but the others? I'm not sure they should've been posted as blurbs. Partly because I don't know who some of them are... Standards here are inconsistently applied, which is a problem, but the answer isn't to simply stop trying to enforce them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If your concern is preventing future posting of blurbs that don't meet the arbitrary standard that a handful of people around here have set, then that ship has sailed. These postings range as far back as 2012, when RD was recently instituted, to as current as earlier this month. Consensus had plenty of time to change in those three years and it has remained mostly the same throughout. The hard truth is that the threshold for a full blurb posting is not as high as people think it is, and that in all of the above cases, the posting administrator believed that the qualifications and requirements for meriting a full blurb were met. Just as with regular ITN articles, if a posting was incorrectly made, it is at the discretion of other presiding administrators to pull an article (see the Holm-Rousey fight). If you want to dispute those postings on the basis that standards were inconsistently applied, then the entire ITN system needs to be re-evaluated to see where consensus does stand. Until then, on the basis of precedence, Jonah Lomu deserves a full blurb as much as the other candidates do. The Mandela and Thatcher standard does not exist.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * People are more than welcome to base their decision on precedence, just as others may choose to ignore it. There are no firm rules, aside from using consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep RD Generally, I don't think rugby union reaches the same viewership and magnitude as association football, for example. And as much as I like to read and watch, I never heard of Lomu before. Brandmeistertalk  20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] [Closed] Russia declares Metrojet Flight 9268 bombed

 * How reliable is the Russian investigation team on this? Frankly, what about on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? Also, read the criticisms on the Service; accusations have been human rights violations and corruption. George Ho (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all the (many) blurbs attribute the claim to the FSB, none of the blurbs are stating this as absolute fact are they? I have no idea what human rights violations has to do with this news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an example of FSB's... unreliability and untrustworthiness(?). George Ho (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, and all other such organisations have never had any such criticism. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support In this case I don't see a compelling reason not to trust this, and FSB cited the results of relevant analysis on substance traces. This is also consistent with ISIL claim. Brandmeistertalk  10:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, alt blurb, per Brandmeister. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Given that only Russia and Eygpt investigators are involved, even if there is question on trustworthiness, this is about as official as it will get. Note that Russia says they've held 17 workers at the airport and two are of critical interest, so they already have suspects and acting on it. --M ASEM (t) 10:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, credible claim. Go for it! Altblurb seems good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - has been posted already twice, no reason to post any new development to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.81.60 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to announce the finding of the cause of the crash? 331dot (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Important development with broader implications. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on update; official finding of a cause is notable; questions of trustworthiness are not relevant, as the readers can decide for themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Given the barrage of previous coverage on this point, suggest we say "confirms" rather than "announces." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, confirms is better. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe concludes? That is was a bomb is technically a hypothesis though one they appear to have enough evidence to support to engage in police/legal action and would likely have high confidence in before doing so. "Confirms" implies they knew exactly what happened which doesn't yet seem to be the case. --M ASEM (t) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous. See homonym. Sca (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The evening news used the term "confirmed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You guys all know where WP:ERRORS is, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was simultaneously posted there. Sca (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the place for this stuff, it doesn't need to be here after posting. Thanks for your understanding.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Je vous en prie. Sca (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Etiam tibi.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Incertum quo fata ferunt. Sca (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 G-20 summit

 * Oppose 1) I dont see what actual news have come out of this summit. 2) The article is not in good shape, to put it delicately. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems to have been pushed out of the news by the Paris attacks; maybe that should mean it gets pushed out of ITN this time, I'm not sure, but I could understand that.  Article is not currently acceptable, as stated. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. I realize that G20 Summits are ITNR, but I'd like to register a symbolic oppose on notability and impact anyway.  Even as far as group economic summits go, this one was especially void of meaningful discussion.128.214.163.142 (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Everything on this summit seems to be about discussing talking points but with no real resolutions as past summits (G8 or G20) typically have. And yes, it's overshadowed by events in Paris. --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per others. Aside from the current news context, these G-whatever summits rarely produce much real news. Sca (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, until they hit some G-spot... Brandmeistertalk  22:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Geeee! Sca (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Rainbow trout transparent.png


 * Oppose - per above. Jus  da  fax   20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE its ITNR. It only needs an update.Lihaas (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ITNR is not a guarantee of posting, if factors warrant not posting, such as a lack of news coverage due to other events. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless some actual news came out of it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * closing given obvious consensus. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove "Metrojet Flight 9268" as Ongoing?
My opposition to featuring this as "Ongoing" wasn't well convincing before it got re-posted. Don't worry; I'll try not to rebut a lot. A week later, the editing has slowed down, and I don't see anything else new at this point, aside from future events that I shall not foresee here. I want to discuss this a week from now, but I've not seen recent stories on investigation lately since bomb hypothesis. You all had it as "ongoing" again that you wanted; shall we retain or remove it from Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal Because the investigation has been closed off to Western agencies, and the last bit was that the black box was sent off for more detailed analysis, this story has gone stale. If the investigation affirms it was done by a bomb, it would gain a new ITN. --M ASEM (t) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Not seeing significant continuing updates; per above.  Spencer T♦ C 09:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - it's had its time on MP now. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] France attacks ISIS
Nom. Ongoing development. --bender235 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't this start a year ago? Isn't that the point, according to some, of the attacks on Paris?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Now news: the article doesn't seem to mention anything about a qualitative change in the airstikes that have been ongoing for quite some time, and any attacks on Raqqah that happened today aren't mentioned. LjL (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This started in 2014. The carrier Charles de Gaulle was withdrawn in April 2015. -- Callinus (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose France might be increasing the intensity of air strike conducted as a result of what happened in Paris, but they didn't start it in response to it. -- KTC (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There might be potential for a ongoing if there a new sustained campaign as a result of the Paris attacks, but at this point as others point out, this is still part of a longer effort French troops have had. --M ASEM (t) 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; not a new operation, maybe a little accelerated as a response, but that's all. 331dot (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also unclear as to if any actual damage was done to ISIS; they are claiming that the attacked facilities were abandoned in anticipation of retaliatory strikes. 331dot (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - as part of the Paris attacks story, because news sources are saying this operation is direct retaliation for the Paris attacks, targeting what they think are the HQ's of the Paris attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UFC 193

 * The article should describe details of the match before posting. Right now, I can't support this nomination. George Ho (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Not a fan, but I know the name, and I guess this is a pretty big UFC story. This seems as good a time as any to feature two topics I don't necessarily care about, but some do: UFC and women's sport, which we feature never and rarely, respectively. The UFC 193 article is currently a weak target, however, and this should obviously be slotted below the Paris attacks if this does get posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't, Bongwarrior. Nov 15 should always be above Nov 13... you know, Friday the 13th, which passed already. George Ho (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as I would prefer to keep the article front and center on the ticker, George is correct. We have to maintain some semblance of objectivity so anything from November 14 onward would be posted above the atrocities in Paris. It will likely be moved to ongoing in due time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we should put consensus first on recent Paris attacks as ongoing. Development took three or four days to make the "Metrojet" investigations ongoing, although I certainly opposed it. Actually, Metrojet was pulled out temporarily by consensus; three or four days later, consensus (or support votes) favored reinserting the event. Look, I'll do the consensus proposal if the Paris attacks blurb is at the near bottom and soon to be pushed out by newer stories. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it would be moved there without discussion, I just said that it would (likely) be placed there "in due time". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that thinking, but I strongly disagree in this case. I don't want to keep the Paris attacks as the top blurb as some memorial, but it's clearly in a different league from anything else on the template, and from anything else we've featured for quite some time. This will continue to be a huge story in the days and weeks ahead, and I don't think we're losing our objectivity by recognizing that and trying to stay in front of that in some fashion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a discussion to see if it's warranted, I'll be in favor of keeping it on top as well. I agree with your reasoning entirely, just trying to maintain status quo of nominations otherwise. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely, no reason not to tread a bit carefully on this in order to avoid setting a bad precedent. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, the Paris attacks can move to the ongoing section. Andise1 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone's interested, I've started a thread about this on the talk page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support – Same reasoning as Bongwarrior. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have updated the article with a bit more information. Please feel free to edit or add anything else to the article to make it suitable for the main page. Andise1 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - article was updated with details of the match. Rousey is a huge figure in women's sports. Proposed ALT blurb. starship.paint ~  KO   09:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable. Updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't follow UFC and still know the name Ronda Rousey and know of her record. I've tweaked the blurb though since it said that Holm was the championship and should read that she is the champion. Dismas |(talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Sadly more notable for her loss than if she had won. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – I can see I'm in the minority here, but I really question the significance of this story in the global scheme of things. Must we? Sca (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "In the global scheme of things?" If you mean "in relation to Paris", then no, but based on that criteria, we wouldn't update ITN again for weeks. In relation to sports and culture? Absolutely. Rousey is the biggest name in a very popular sport, a crossover star who now acts in movies and models (and, for example, was the first woman ever on the cover of Men's Fitness), and the person Sports Illustrated called the world's most dominant athlete. ESPN's business reporter thinks that the UFC can easily survive her losing once, but also states, "It can be argued that never before has any sport's league or promotion had as much riding on a single event than the UFC will have when Rousey steps in the Octagon with Holm again." This loss was the biggest event in MMA history, and one of the biggest events of the year in any sport. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even in the global scheme of (inherently insignificant) sports news. Sca (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Marked as ready – Not sure which altblurb to use though since sports are not my forte. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Should we include details about the other fights on the card in the article? Andise1 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Old fights are no longer newsworthy, but you can do it. Why not discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts? George Ho (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you misunderstood me. I meant details about the other fights that occurred at UFC 193 before the Rousey vs. Holm fight. Andise1 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Be careful of UFC fanatics; they have not participated at ITN before. George Ho (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time to add this information right now, but if someone else is willing to go ahead. Otherwise, I will try to add it when I get the chance. My main question was should details on the other UFC 193 fights be necessary before the article goes up on the main page? Andise1 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to mention the other fights- not even the other title fight. Comparatively, they're completely irrelevant. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose if this is such a big deal, why is the article so slim, and why is there absolutely no reaction to this so-called surprise result? What does the result of Rousey losing even mean?  Expand away.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support You guys are constantly posting the most obscure sports stories to ITN, so why not UFC? ITN/R has no less than 31 different sports events, all of which are 'notable' enough to be posted without even a discussion. Also this nomination has overwhelming support. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of voting without any kind of substance, other than the claim this is supported, the point is that we're trying to establish if this is actually updated sufficiently, not just the headline. If it's really such a big deal, why is the article so crap?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What, Rambling Man? How is the quality of All-Russia Athletic Federation page not similar to this? Am I sensing closeted preferences (I don't mean sexuality)? Look, there have been references in the UFC page, but the Russian one... OMG. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What, George? What?  Fix it, as I suggested.  Sense what you like, it's creepy and a little bit sad, but fine by me if it makes you tick.  Look, stop saying "Look" at the start of your sentences, it's not helpful and a little rude.  OMG to you too, I note you didn't take any of my advice.  Start.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "If this is so significant, why is the article so crap?" - well perhaps because nobody bothered to update it!? Since when did 'if it is significant it will have a big article' become a rule anyway, and why should anyone feel obligated to update an article? People update articles based on what they are interested in + what they have time to do, and people nominate articles they think should be featured on ITN. FYI I nominated the Astrosat article to ITN in September, which was almost universally supported, and I didn't write a single word in the Astrosat article. While you're in the business of calling George Ho rude, I'm going to say as well, TRM, that I find your reasoning for not posting this - which is almost a variant of "I'm going to sit here and and do nothing while you people update the article to my satisfaction" - rude. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting articles at ITN is two-pronged: (1) significance of an event; and (2) showcasing Wikipedia articles. It is reasonable to suppose that the WADA story is of broader interest than the Rousey story; it is therefore also reasonable to suppose that the WADA story is likely to be put in good shape more rapidly. Hence, TRM's point is valid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that "Reactions" section was added, I hope this is ready to go. --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind. --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article opens with a lede saying 'this is notable because'. That's always a bad sign - Wikipedia bureaucratese in a self-justifying context. Until the article is rewritten - and the notability not just for WP but for ITN - is more self-evident, I don't think I can support this. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Other issues with the article aside, are you saying you think it's a bad thing that the lead contains a concise summary of what was important about the event? I also am not sure what you mean by "self-evident" - it doesn't seem like a concept that has any logical relevance to a scheduled sporting event, or something I would find a useful guideline for ITN notability in general (or anything else really).  An oppose on article improvements is perfectly legitimate, but taking the summary out of the lead doesn't seem like it would be an improvement to me. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the lead, changing the wording to make it more suitable for the main page. Andise1 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It seems a lot less notable than the average ITN sports nom. Let's post something else than this. You can pull that ready tag. Jus  da  fax   03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Now that the initial excitement of the result has worn off, the truth is clear as stated by TRM -- there is no lasting notability that merits posting this on ITN. And the quality of the article... UGH!!!--WaltCip (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is another section of another match. George Ho (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to complain about the quality of the article, you could always work on updating the article to make it better. I have edited the lead paragraph to make the wording better and more suitable for the article. Andise1 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Numerous sports news sources are indeed calling this a truly significant outcome. The article as I write this comment has 22 references and looks perfectly fine for an article summarizing a fighting event.  It would be helpful if the "article sucks" voters who also have no desire to improve the article would offer more useful feedback than "UGH!" but such is ITN. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article was in a pretty poor state when I first nominated this, (as are most UFC event articles), but I have tried to update the article the best I could. As I have mentioned before, other editors are welcome to add any information they deem important or necessary to the article for it to be on the main page. I don't have all the time in the world to work on articles, and seeing as I was one of the few who added significant updates to the article, I tried my best to bring it up to main page standards. Andise1 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Considerable coverage especially compared to typical UFC outcomes. Article has improved greatly since initial nomination.LM2000 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This has gained significantly more coverage than other UFC outcomes. Even people who don't follow the sport (like me) seem to know the result. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Recognize significance, but oppose on article quality – The article I'm reading is awfully skimpy compared to the media hype I've witnessed both before and after the event. Yes, the only news worth repeating is that Rousey lost the fight, after having been built up as an unstoppable monster for at least the past two years.  However, the coverage of that fight in the article pales in comparison to the coverage given to Jędrzejczyk vs. Létourneau, which makes no sense.  I've seen articles devoted to Rousey's individual fights before.  If the "newsworthy event" is Rousey's fight, then perhaps a separate article is a better way to go.  BY THE WAY, the blurb is worded to state that Holm is pictured, when the photo accompanying the blurb is actually of Rousey. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved "pictured". George Ho (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rousey was knocked out suddenly in round 2, while Jędrzejczyk vs. Letourneau went on five rounds and was decided by the judges. That's why Rousey vs. Holm is shorter. Smurrayinchester 14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as fanboy POV. I haven't taken the time to read all of the coverage of the event, but it's clear from what I have read that the focus of attention from both media and fans was on Rousey/Holm and little else, as mentioned earlier by .  One would hope that we would reflect that weight, rather than merely providing a mini-play-by-play which gives far more article space to a far less important fight.  At least the section "One-round fights" was renamed before it was necessary to point out that the lack of sufficient background provided may mislead readers into thinking that the fights were scheduled for one round, when instead it referred to the fights not lasting beyond the first round. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted I made a slight tweak by posting the image of the winner instead of the loser, per usual practice. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-post oppose - train wreak a lot more newsworthy, and it's not even exceptionally newsworthy (I actually opposed it). LjL (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Embarrassing. Sca (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post posting support. This is the sport at its highest level. It's currently main page news for the BBC and the Guardian, made a $6 million gate in Australia, and is a pay-per-view juggernaut in the US, so unlike 99% of the sporting stories we post, it's clearly of international interest to boot. G RAPPLE   X  15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * BBC currently leads with "Paris attacks: France 'at war' says President Hollande."
 * Guardian currently leads with "Alleged Mastermind of Paris attacks named."
 * Of interest to whom? Sca (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You may need to point out where I said "leading story", because I distinctly recall typing "main page news", which it is. Both of them feature it on their home page at the time of this comment. And in regard to your second question, to sport fans, clearly. G RAPPLE   X  15:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sport(s) fans in general, or just UFC devotees?
 * Glad your short-term memory is distinct. Sca (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither website's home pages seem to mention the word "Holm" at this time, so if they did when you posted, it may have been a very brief fluke. LjL (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hit a ctrl+F search for "Rousey" and turned it up on both; she may have lost but she's by far the more known name. G RAPPLE   X  16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I get no hit for "Rousey" either at this time. LjL (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * bbc.com has it on their homepage as "Upset in Ultimate Fighting Championship", no names mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have "Ronda Rousey knocked out by Holly Holm in UFC title upset" on the BBC home page right now; is it perhaps regionally different? G RAPPLE   X  16:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be. I'm located in Italy, and The Guardian for instance explicitly sends me to http://www.theguardian.com/international when I load their homepage. Still... Wikipedia is international, and probably shouldn't mention events with only a local significance, if this is such a case. LjL (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet we post England-only football, US-only gridiron, or Indian-only cricket stories; sport is often inherently local. But for what it's worth, it's pretty big news here in Ireland, for a fight that took place in Australia, between two Americans, which doesn't scream local to me. G RAPPLE   X  16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I guess. My personal view is that just because sports fan are often very adamant, vocal and passionate about their hobby doesn't necessarily make it international news of general interest. LjL (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am sorry but how was this posted? I don't want to go into the entire is it significant thing (it is not in my opinion, but I don't mind if consensus says otherwise). But how do we post such a slim article that does not even mention the fight in the blurb with more than two lines? This is embarassing for ITN indeed! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull, insufficient time given for debate. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? It was nominated at 06:26, 15 November and posted at 13:47, 16 November. How is 36 hours "insufficient"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was posted and should never have been posted. Posting that piece of garbage brought the correct reaction; it should never have been posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pull – For previously noted reasons. Sca (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, feel free to pull (but note I have already !voted "pp oppose" above). LjL (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled. The ITN blurb actually contained more information establishing the event's significance than the article itself did.  A match summary, while important, is insufficient.  As discussed above, there must be coverage of the bout's "upset" nature and reactions thereto (the reason behind its high level of notability).  —David Levy 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * REPOST Are you people serious? The article is almost over 5kb prose, so much longer than many articles that get posted here. Pulling an article makes it harder for people to find it, and therefore harder for them to update and improve it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is "In The News", not "Long Articles". You can make your point with lowercase like everybody else, by the way... LjL (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel I've made my point. This article is sufficiently long and updated, with consensus to post after a sufficient debating period here. I see no valid reason to pull it and it should be reposted NOW. All caps. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , have you considered ital as a tool for emphasis? That's what's generally used in expository prose. Sca (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it helps make my point I'll consider it in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Much as I don't support the posting of this on ITN, posting it for half a day and then pulling it is extremely confusing to our readers. Either post it and keep it posted, or don't post it at all!--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think getting things right is more important than causing a little fluke (and I don't see how a normal reader is liable to be very confused, anyway). LjL (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - It would be great if those who advocated for this to be pulled help update the article to main page standards. I know some of you are not interested in UFC, but those who can help and know what needs updating should help if able to. Andise1 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If this does get reposted, can it be placed below the information about the Paris attacks? Regardless of whether or not the fight is significant enough for the ITN section, it is far less significant than the Paris attacks and I feel that placing such a soft news story above the attacks makes us look bad. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think this is an instance in which WP:IAR would apply in this case.--WaltCip (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Spirit of Eagle and WaltCip. The consensus already agreed in the talk page not to do that. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be easier and less consensus-breaking (as well as, in my opinion, more sensible) not to post it at all. LjL (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus already strongly favors posting this, which is presumably why it was posted. Given that most of the votes opposing on grounds of quality have failed to give useful feedback (does the article itself need to explain both the concept of a sports upset involving a famously undefeated champion and the celebrity of the first truly successful female fighter without allowing that a reader might click the link on Ronda Rousey to see what she's about?  It's obviously too soon to expand upon what impact this could have on the sport, which is the section that stands out as most plainly absent when compared to other articles dealing with other major sports upsets.) and largely simply express disgust (and one, mysteriously enough, claims 36 hours isn't enough time to debate?), I suspect the tacting being employed is to simply obstruct until it goes stale, hardly uncommon but never fun for those who work to get articles in good shape to please those who really don't want to see it posted anyway - as you've admitted is the case for yourself. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus doesn't mean "majority". There was a somewhat slight majority to post, there was no "consensus" in Wikipedia terms. LjL (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus against listing it under the section on the French attacks, then I oppose listing this ITN update at all since the article is underdeveloped and of questionable significance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The vote tally I just counted is 13 support, 6 oppose, hardly the slim majority you're making it out to be. It's purely subjective, but by my count a number of the opposes are also rather empty votes, amounting to no more than griping about article quality without offering suggestions.  At this point I think it's fair to ask exactly what you think is missing for this to go up since it has popular support and editors willing to make the needed changes - and I emphasize that it is not respectful of others' time to say that this only needs improvements if admins intend to veto this no matter what is done. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you coutned, but I counted 10 among "oppose", "pull" and "agree with pull". As to what is missing, I guess you'd have to ask those who think that, because personally, I just think it shouldn't be posted regardless. LjL (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull is not the same as oppose - and some are duplicates. Your specific words are that not posting this would be less consensus-breaking.  In what possible way is that true?  Not posting this is a direct defiance of consensus, and I point out that a number of the opposes seem to be directly in defiance of policy (such as "don't post at all if it would go above the Paris attacks") besides consensus.  Indeed, your own oppose uses this reasoning: "train wreak a lot more newsworthy", not generally considered good rationale, so I wonder why you want to argue over the "legal" definition of consensus when your own vote was empty of substance? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Agree with the rationale for pulling the pose. The article needs to expand on why it was considered an upset e.g. pre-bout expectations, post-fight reactions).—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to expand on that when the link to Ronda Rousey, right there in the blurb, explains her status and hence why this is an upset? What specifically is unclear? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Basic information about Rousey relevant to the fight should ideally be in this article. Readers shouldn't have to chase links to figure out why the fight and the loss was a big deal. More detailed information can be left in her bio. I'd expect to see a few sentences on her prior record and reputation and why Holm was considered an underdog.—Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Though Ronda Rousey was favored to defeat Holly Holm, Holm won in an upset, for Rousey's first career defeat" is the current second sentence, which concisely describes the basics of what happened (Rousey was undefeated and favored, Holm won). I am concerned that creating an entire subsection in the UFC 193 article simply to describe the renown of one of the competitors is inappropriate given that the event, like all UFC events, featured numerous fighters, and fighter bios can rightly go in their own articles.  In short, I feel that what you are suggesting may be writing an article solely for ITN at the expense of proper writing for the topic in general. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why "an entire subsection" would necessarily be needed. I don't think a few sentences explaining why she was favored and to what extent is "at the expense of proper writing".  As the basis of notability of this ITNC nomination is that this was a monumental upset of sorts, I would expect the article to have some expansion of that for the benefit of non-UFC fans.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comment above regarding fanboy POV. Wikipedia content is supposed to be written for a general audience, not "by fanboys, for fanboys".  The latter is a little too evident with our coverage of a great many sports with ardent fans.  I agree with those editors who have pointed out that the article is sorely lacking in background.  A non-fan who reads the article at some point in the future, without the surrounding media hype, may have a hard time understanding what the big deal was.  Remember, there's a reason why editors constantly refer to WP:NOTNEWS and how there's a difference between news and encyclopedic content. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support posting and oppose pull. The "article is not good enough" argument for opposing this is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Even if we accept that the article is not good enough, ITN has four purposes, of which only one is violated by the article not being good enough. Furthermore, WP:ITN says "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable", and the article right now has well over five sentences with three references, something that should qualify as 'more than sufficient'. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This actually got posted?! Haha, a new all-time low.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - minor sport and this does not even seem to be the top competition (or rather there are ten of them) in this sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.81.60 (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2015‎ (UTC)
 * It's absolutely the top competition in mixed martial arts; the next closest promotion in size doesn't even have the clout to enter the pay-per-view market. In terms of high-level competition, UFC is MMA. G RAPPLE   X  15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ten of what? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Major venue, major attendance, major gate, major buys, major hype, major title change, major knockout, major win for major boxer and major loss for major celebrity. That's why it received major coverage "in the news". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the obvious schism in opinions here, I think it might be fitting for an admin to close this nom as no consensus. This is not likely to get anywhere further other than generate more heat than light.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Warren Mitchell

 * Weak support on article improvements More sourcing is needed. On the importance, I'm on the edge but would swing in favor of the BAFTA wins. --M ASEM (t) 15:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support most of the article is inline sourced, and per frequent pleas here, the rest of it is sourced by blue links to other articles which verify the claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There were two paragraphs that included potentially contentious claims/original research without sourcing, and a blue link is not sufficient for that purpose. However I added the inlines to support those two points, so it should all be good. --M ASEM (t) 19:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jolly good. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How would a British audience compare him to Geoffrey Palmer (actor) and Richard Briers? Maybe I am not seeing it. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, which I will attempt to answer. This is his obit in the Independent.  His main role, Alf Garnett, was a national institution, watched by 20 million viewers, even if not everyone understood that you were not supposed to agree with the character's racist views. (Ricky Gervaias called Garnett "one of the most influential and important characters and performances in comedy history.") But he was also an actor with a life outside the TV show that was his trademark, and the obit records that Arthur Miller said he was the best Willy Loman he'd seen (Death of a Salesman). The Guardian says that "The fact that Mitchell could play impressively on television both Garnett and Shylock – a mouthpiece for religious intolerance and a victim of it – is a measure of his range."  He won awards for stage and for TV work.  Probably loved in a different way to Briers, whose comedy was of a different character but who also did some serious work; and probably a broader appeal than Palmer (who isn't dead, but you had me worred that I'd missed something!).  I was thinking of nominating him but someone beat me to it, so I'm going to say belatedly that I think that he was widely regarded as a leading British actor of his generation, and so this is a support for RD. BencherliteTalk 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To possibly help: when trying to find references I mentioned above, (speaking as an American that has not seen Till Death but enough other British television to get the gist) I got the direct impression one could compare the character of Alf to Archie Bunker, and in fact, Archie's actor, Carroll O'Connor to Mitchell's own career. This comparison is far from being one to one, but both Bunker and O'Connor had recognition within US television, hence I feel Mitchell here is just as reasonable in British comedy/acting. --M ASEM (t) 23:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except Bunker's character is renown for the impact it had on social issues of the time. Is there evidence of something similar here?—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by the last section in Alf Garnett, yes, as the name of the character seems to be used in a manner in UK politics. But I do agree that it doesn't seem to be as much as with Archie Bunker. Still, I still weakly support this. --M ASEM (t) 00:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To add another British voice, I felt the failure (as I recall) to post Richard Briers was a mistake. The two are hard to compare; Briers was very well known for several hugely popular roles; Mitchell not so much, but 'Alf Garnett' is synonymous with a particular set of attitudes. Garnett is, I think, better known than any role Palmer played. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not clear to me that he has a deep, lasting impact to the industry, even at a local level. Globally, no mention found of death in American newspaper of record, The New York Times.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Oppose He had a long and notable coaching career, but he's not the HOF-level of coach, like a Dean Smith or a Jerry Tarkanian. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He seems to be a maybe above average coach but I don't think that meets "very important" to his field. I'm not convinced that the scandal makes him important(maybe I could be, but I'm not yet). 331dot (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Coach is not considered very important to his field. For sports-related deaths, my litmus test is whether a newspaper of record like The New York Times prominently covers it.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Not really top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


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

[Closed] RD: Hisham Nazer

 * Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the death criteria. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not notable or made a significant impact to his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Egeymi said I should have mentioned his position as political minister of oil. I don't know how significant the position is, but I don't think it would have made any difference, given the opposition here. Also, he lost his role as an ambassador due to his incident with some woman at an Egyptian airport during the start of the Egyptian crisis. That's more significant than being related to oil politics unless someone can add more content in the article. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - important person in the world of oil and geopolitics, and article is in good shape — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.81.60 (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing how this person is important. Also, there's tense issues with the article so some more updating is needed. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ambassador and oil company executive? Hardly the cursus honorum we'd expect for an RD candidate. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Clueless oppose- he was the oil minister of the largest oil producer in the world. The person who nationalized ARAMCO, the most important oil company in the world. And he was ARAMCO's first Saudi chairman. In the world of oil (post World War II) he was a hugely influential figure, second only to Ahmed Yamani Juan Pablo Alfonso. Maybe that is not notable enough for RD (I guess he should have been a wrestler or an actor instead), but at least when opposing make an attempt to educate yourself about the person in question. Same goes also to the person who claimed that the person who nationalized ARAMCO hads no significant impact to his field. That's laughable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.67.96 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Nick Bockwinkel

 * Oppose most of the "American Wrestling Association" and "Post-retirement" sections are unreferenced. Also I can't see where the second para of the lead is expanded upon and seriously referenced in the main part of the article.  Claiming things like "many industry experts to be an excellent wrestler" need multiple reliable sources for example.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Referencing work is underway. Based on how things have gone in the past with underreferenced articles nominated at ITN, the professional wrestling project has done quick work (see Dusty Rhodes and Roddy Piper this year for examples). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on article quality – To address TRM's concerns, I'm not so concerned about the AWA and post-retirement sections being unreferenced as I'm concerned about those sections dominating the article. As with most pro wrestling biographies on Wikipedia, this is more a coatrack to the promotions the wrestler worked for than a proper biography of the wrestler.  His father was a top wrestler, and in fact promoted Nick as a future wrestler when he was a teenager, but according to the article, nothing is known about his life prior to leaving OU and turning professional?  I don't buy that one bit.  One of the Slam Wrestling pieces I read, plus Bobby Heenan's autobiography and other sources over the years, have mentioned that Bockwinkel had multiple hot runs in Georgia Championship Wrestling throughout the 1960s and 1970s, of which there is zero mention.  He also appeared in more than one episode of Hawaii Five-O, which causes me to wonder if more can be said about his acting career than merely offering a list of appearances.  The AWA section, like the AWA article itself, gives undue weight to particular events at the expense of providing a more accessible overview.  Bockwinkel had mentioned in interviews that the AWA's touring schedule gave him several days off per week.  He fondly took advantage of that and defended the AWA title in numerous other promotions, including those affiliated with "rival" National Wrestling Alliance.  Instead of providing that overview, we mention a single such match against Bob Backlund.  Curiously enough, this exact same problem exists in the Antonio Inoki article – little or no mention of countless notable events, but it does mention a particular match against Backlund, a match which was never even acknowledged to Backlund's North American fans at the time due to its controversial finish.  Oh yeah, there's also zero mention of numerous appearances in the Memphis promotion from 1981–83 or thereabouts.  In particular, he played a minor role in the Jerry Lawler vs. Andy Kaufman feud, events which the industry and even fans make out to be a bigger deal than it really was (including on Wikipedia), presumably due to Kaufman's celebrity.  Once again, not reflected in the article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  08:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but wait on the article's quality improving. G RAPPLE   X  11:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Top of his field and meets RD criteria for notability, but article needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. For sports-related deaths, my litmus test is based on coverage by a newspaper of record like The New York Times, where I see no mention on his death. Aside for industry longevity, he doesn't have the wider impact of a Roddy Piper. Bockwinkel seems to below the tier of even other long-time wrestlers whose deaths did not get posted recently like Dusty Rhodes (Rhodes' ITNC link) or Vern Gagne (Gagne's ITNC link). The Times had its own writeup for Gagne and ran AP's story on Rhodes. Even ESPN.com, which has been providing more mainstream coverage of wrestling, doesn't cover Bockwinkel, though they had AP's story on Gagne.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Gagne was one of the bigger stars in all of network television during the 1950s, while Piper was one of the stars of the "Rock 'n' Wrestling Connection" and related events, which led to a film career and other reknown.  There's about a quarter century in between in which the mainstream media was content to pretend that professional wrestling didn't exist, apart from occasional derisive hit pieces found in a local newspaper or a monthly magazine.  This period coincides with the majority of Bockwinkel's heyday as an active wrestler.  Also, not only the mainstream media, but also the wrestling media, weren't as likely to notice you if you didn't perform at Madison Square Garden, something which has been pointed out countless times over the years by wrestlers and wrestling journalists.  The AWA was based in Minneapolis, hardly a media capital back in those days.  I can assure you that such lack of media attention wasn't very important to fans: the business overall was healthy, some of his biggest matches of the 1970s occurred in venues as large as Comiskey Park and Soldier Field, plus AWA All-Star Wrestling was getting consistent 20+ ratings and 60+ shares on most of its affiliates.  Arguably the pinnacle of Bockwinkel's career was on April 24 (?  I've seen two other dates mentioned across various sources), 1983, known in the wrestling world as "Super Sunday" (once again, the article fails to give appropriate mention to this event in favor of details and results of more obscure matches).  In that event, for the second time in less than a year, Hulk Hogan pinned Bockwinkel, only to have the title returned to Bockwinkel on a technicality.  That previous time, however, they did the switcheroo on television after the fact.  This time, they did it at the event itself, which led to a near-riot at the St. Paul Civic Center.  Fan riots or the threat thereof were fairly common in the Northeast and Southern United States back in those days.  I forget who wrote this, but one account of that event pointed out that it would have taken a very special performer to incite a riot among "mild-mannered" upper-midwestern people of Scandanavian descent.
 * I see that the article has been updated, but I still question whether there's any improvement. Obviously, someone out there is a huge Bob Backlund fan, as there is now even more mention of Backlund than before.  A paragraph was inserted mentioning how he began using a dictionary to bolster his interviews, but it's in the AWA section, potentially misleading readers into believing that he began this practice while in the AWA.  The source I read stated that he started it while working a program with Dory Funk, Jr. in Georgia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  12:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Also, not only the mainstream media, but also the wrestling media, weren't as likely to notice you if you didn't perform at Madison Square Garden, something which has been pointed out countless times over the years by wrestlers and wrestling journalists" If media wasn't covering him then, and his death is only sparsely being covering now, that lends greater weight to not posting this based on the WP:WEIGHT of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (Directed at Bagumba) There are two problems with your argument. The first is that Dusty Rhodes SHOULD have been posted, and an admin even admitted that, but was ignored until too much time had passed. Verne Gagne had little mainstream coverage and the nom just petered out. NEITHER of them was rejected on notability grounds. Three HAVE been included: Maurice Vachon (who Bockwinkel surpasses, except in Quebec), The Ultimate Warrior (who Bockwinkel easily surpasses on notability, although Warrior is better known to today's audience) and Roddy Piper.
 * The second is that mainstream media sources are largely run by idiots who cover things that appeal to idiots. A wrestler retired for 25 years who is largely unknown to today's mainstream crowd is an easy one for them to skip. This is not exclusive to wrestling of course, many very notable people who have been retired for decades have died with barely a blip in mainstream coverage. This should NOT automatically exclude them from RD. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  13:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My main criteria is lack of mainstream coverage of his death. The other examples I gave were for perspective of past wrestler deaths with more coverage then Bockwinkel that (for either notability or content reasons) didn't manage support. "mainstream media sources are largely run by idiots who cover things that appeal to idiots:" Perhaps, but WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support Article seems in good shape. I do express concern that few major sources have picked up on this, but also consider the # of championships he has won and other text we have that he actually was important during his peak, but time has since forgotten that period and no major sources have really covered that. (Also considering the timing with other world events...) Swing in favor of inclusion. --M ASEM (t) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Minneapolis still remembers enough for a detailed feature. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly not a household name like many others of that time. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh this should be good. Name me one household name from his era. And before you go to look someone up, keep in mind that I'll have a pretty good idea of whether you're lying or not. And for the record, he was a household name in the Midwest, which is where the AWA was based. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Bockwinkel was as big a star regionally as Maurice Vachon but was far better known beyond than him. Article is in much better shape than when initially nominated.LM2000 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Widely considered one of the top performers in a notable profession. Referencing has improved significantly. Let's get this posted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Eckwersheim train crash
*Oppose I oppose its addition. It would cause too much confusion due to the major top story, not to mention the fact that it is only getting so much attention because it comes on the heals of a more worldwide crisis. This is certainly a big deal in France, and at most western Europe as it is part of an international railway system, but not universal enough for the highly selective news blip on the front page of an enormous website who's first purpose is not be a newspaper. However I will add that despite not being a regular service passenger train, it is a setback for a major high speed rail project that will have implications beyond France, as aforementioned. B137 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is the deadliest crash of a TGV train in history. Serious crashes of high-speed trains are rare in Europe. BCdcc (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per BCdcc.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Tragic, but this is no exception to other train accidents, especially this year's. If it's not linked to terrorism, then I shall say don't post this. I'm astonished by consensus supports here. This ain't special, no matter how "deadliest" the crash was. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom. Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article says this happened during a test run on an unopened section of a high-speed line, with a crew of 49 technicians. Tragic, but not a regular passenger service. Brandmeistertalk  18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as I honestly believe it wouldn't even get listed, or get widespread support, if people didn't think it was somehow linked to the Paris attacks. LjL (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - apparently nothing to do with yesterday's events in Paris, despite some claims to the contrary. Significant accident on a modern high-speed rail system. Death toll adds weight to the case for posting, but is not the reason to post. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only real rationale for posting a one-off transportation accident is that if it bleeds it leads. This is tragic, but without some other aggravating factor like sabotage it doesn't reach the level of encyclopedic notability we want for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As long as its confirmed to be unconnected, a test run that involves no passengers, while unfortunate, is not really that important in the scheme of things. --M ASEM (t) 19:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose in light of the events overnight in Paris. Would give a weak support otherwise, but given the recent atrocities it's probably best to avoid posting this one in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ammend and support alt blurb II or III This nomination should be renewed with a different focus that would also cause less confusion with the attacks: In France, the first fatal accident in the history of the TGV high-speed rail system occurs during a test run on a new line. Source B137 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added your alternative as altblurb2. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As soon as I realized how many "alt blurbs" there were available I knew there shouldn't be a duplication, but then I wasn't sure if editors other than the nominate were supposed to edit the nomination. B137 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... The alts don't change the meaning. Pinging LjL, Masem, and User:Medeis. George Ho (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given I have been pung, to be frank, it doesn't bleed enough in the current context, so it shouldn't lead. We just had 6 migrant workers killed in a crash in Arkansas.  We have have plenty of such crashes that have been opposed in the past.  I will remain opposed, although posting this would not normally seem terribly out of place, nor will it truly bother me if it is posted.  The bottom line is that what we post depends on the context as well as the facts, and this is not the slow season. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging also Cyclonebiskit and Brandmeister. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My vote remains unchanged for the same reason I mentioned before alongside those put forth by Medeis. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Same, although I'm leaning towards weak oppose. TGV are designed to carry passengers, while test runs might involve somewhat different conditions. Brandmeistertalk  09:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A week ago I might have supported this, but right now the Paris bombings and Russian suspension are far more significant news items. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per all the other opposes. Lacks wider significance. Sca (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose barely scratching the surface of news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support High speed rail accidents are newsworthy because high speed rail transportation is in my opinion a very good option for future development due to its high efficiency and potential for expansion. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While your opinion about future transport is fascinating, it has no relevance to this nomination at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because fatal high-speed rail accidents are rare indeed, even if this was a test(I believe this was the first for the TGV). 331dot (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Train crash with more than 10 people dead is clearly suitable for ITN. Regarding the "it is not important compared to Paris" opposes: Now that some relatively obscure UFC news is at the top (here in Europe this is nowhere near to making headlines anywhere, and noone even knows what UFC is), one cannot argue against adding a major train accident to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The UFC result is linked on the home page of the bbc.com website. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not in the version of bbc.com that is (currently) presented to me. Perhaps they consider it regional. LjL (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * bbc.com is not the corporation's main news page; bbc.co.uk/news is. That's had mention of the crash and developing investigation - including whether and why children were on board - more or less since it happened. (ETA: It's gone now, but the principle is still good: if you're going to use this test, do it right.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * bbc.com/news is the international arrival point for those using the BBC from outside the UK, I get to see both bbc.com and bbc.co.uk every day, so there's no need to tell me or anyone else for that matter to do the test right. That homepage did have the UFC fight noted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, a train crash with only ten deaths is clearly not automatically notable enough for ITN. Suitability then devolves into questions of coverage, which is very low given that this was more of an industrial accident. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Closed as this is three days from nomination and there is no sudden trend toward supporting. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Move Helmut Schmidt to RD?
We are getting newer stories. Therefore, shall we move Helmut Schmidt to Recent deaths? George Ho (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think it should've been posted as a blurb, but it happened before I could oppose it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When his blurb falls off, and its within 7 days of his death, it can be moved to RD, but should not be moved now. --M ASEM (t) 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the MotoGP blurb should be bumped for the next story when Schmidt could be moved. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a reasonable suggestion given his passing does not need a blurb to be explained, while other ITN items do. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The blurb says very little that his appearance as a recent death would not.  If you want to know how old he was, click the link and read about him.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis. Neljack (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Liberation of Sinjar

 * Support once merge tag is resolved. At last some good news. Brandmeistertalk  09:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously support. This is a hugely relevant step within the struggle agaist ISIS. Rather than merging the articles I would create an umbrella article covering the whole Battle of Sinjar though (compare fr:Bataille de Sinjar) with the two offensives as specific sub-topics. Also added a photo and an alternative blurb stressing the actual liberation rather than the announcement. PanchoS (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support First, I have looked to verify that other western press agencies are reporting this, so this isn't just posturing on the local press. That said, I do see the importance of this but worry that this is only one step against a longer war, so posting every update like this might be a problem. We did post when ISIS took hold and destroyed ancient ruins of other cities, the focus being on the latter part, here this is just one strategic target. But I also realize how big this victory is in the efforts there, so I would still support it, just caution to avoid posting every victory in the future. --M ASEM  (t) 13:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't like the use of the word "liberate" in the blurbs. One man's liberation is another man's occupation. Thue (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re User:Thue: While I'm yet to hear who feels occupied now in Sinjar, I agree "recapture" is more neutral. Added this in another blurb propsal. Now let's get forward, before it's yesterday's news. PanchoS (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Recapture is absurd, and the opposite of liberate, not a neutral alternative. The city was always part of Kurdistan.  "Retake" is neutral, I have posted that as an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO, "recapture" is absolutely neutral regarding to whom some area "really" belongs. But more importantly, I added the discovered Yazidi mass grave which is today's news. PanchoS (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sinjar was never captured by the Kurds in the first place. If it was, provide a link{.{cn}}  Otherwise, let's use English.  The town was taken back (retaken) from ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting waaaaay into grammar pedantry, but how do you see 'retaken' as grammatically different from 'recaptured'? If it was taken by ISIS and then retaken by the Kurds, then surely it was captured by ISIS and recaptured by the Kurds?  Not important for this nomination, though, I think.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If for whatever reason we delay the most spectacular defeats of ISIS like this one, until it falls off the breaking news ticker, while always being quick posting every single shocking act ISIS committed, then we're effectively participating in ISIS' recruiting propaganda. No, we're not taking sides, and exactly therefore this may not longer be withheld. Please think about it, and now post whatever you like, just post it, and post it now rather than tomorrow. --PanchoS (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2: Significant development in the war against ISIL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I withdrew the proposed image as the Paris bombings image of the Bataclan theatre should better remain there. PanchoS (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - widely covered and significant event. Banedon (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we continue like this, then we'll have to announce the full defeat of ISIS, before getting this posted. This is really getting ridiculous. I mean, we're not talking about some minor battle amongst hundred others that are taking place every day. We're talking about the largest offensive in months, an offensive discussed in public days before it began, an offensive that was supported by Kurdish, Yazidi, Iraqi and (for the first time officially) even U.S. Special Forces. An offensive that effectively split ISIL's controlled area in two, and reversed control of the town that last year was the reason the U.S. got involved in the war against ISIS.
 * Support - Seems to me that someone is reluctant to post merger proposal is preventing</U> this story from being featured, making this story stale. The Kurdish recapturing of the city is not similar to terror attacks in Paris (or in Beirut), but it is still... well, bigger news to Western media. Unsure about how other regional media (e.g. Russian or Chinese) in global news treat it, but it's still big. Can we just post the recapture already with or without mass corpses of women? George Ho (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge proposal wasn't going anywhere (no support !votes, three oppose !votes, and apparent momentum toward building up the new article with additional information and updates), so I closed it. This should be ready to post now, unless there are any other issues that are eluding my attention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment we have multiple blurbs to choose from, many of which include the finding of a mass grave. However, this fact is deemed so insignificant that it isn't even featured in the lead.  Please make a decision on what needs to be done before re-marking as ready.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man, there is already a consensus to post the recapture Sinjar blurb in any form. If you can't decide which one, at least pick the least surprising blurb (for now) until consensus decides to pick. Otherwise, let's wait for another administrator to do this. Also, I've started a discussion on multiple blurbs. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop adding so many alt blurbs, it's not helpful AT ALL, for the very least the reason I've added above. Stop disrupting the process.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't you just vote if you won't post yet? George Ho (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I'm not here to "vote".  I'm here to make sense of the mess of multiple alt blurbs added at different times.  Stop now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Post with Altblurb II. --bender235 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted take all complaints about the choice of blurb to WP:ERRORS so we don't continually bloat this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Russia athletic suspension

 * support - Definitely notable and groundbreaking decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - That's a response that I would have wanted to see based on the previous nom. I've added a altblurb regarding that it was the IAAF that did the suspension. --M ASEM (t) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support An actual suspension is better to post than a suggestion of a suspension. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Obviously noteworthy when a major sporting country is banned from international competition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Per nom and Muboshgu. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  01:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the primary source says that the suspension is provisional, and that all possible steps will be taken to make sure Russia competes in the 2016 Olympics. Until Russia is actually excluded from or boycotts a competition we have a declaration, not a fact. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I continue to "Support", you make a valid point. The last argument in the initial WADA announcement was that "nothing has happened yet". Using that logic, still nothing has happened yet, except another announcement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Russia is suspended *right now*. IAAF may/will have a meeting ~next month where they may change their mind over the suspension (unless Russia say they're happy to be suspended), but that doesn't affect the fact that the suspension is active. If a person is convicted of a crime, they may still have (possibly many) avenue of appeals but we say they have been convicted of the crime, we don't wait until all the appeals go through first. The suspension is in force until it's overturned, either because IAAF changes their mind, or Russia is deemed to meet whatever criteria that are yet to be set out, or possibly the passing of a fixed timeframe but that one's unlikely. What's "in the news" is that IAAF have suspended Russia from its competitions. By next month's European Cross Country Championships, that's not news anymore since it would be "yeah they're still suspended". If you don't think this item isn't right for ITN then that's fine but make that the argument, not maybe later ... until the story is not actually in the news anymore. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be supported - in fact the original WADA item should have been posted and this would just be part of "ongoing", which would make more sense. I can easily argue that until Russia actually is unable to participate in something, this is nothing more than an announcement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - Given the magnitude of events, may I suggest, if posted, that we post this below the Paris attacks blurb? Thanks. Jus  da  fax   02:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And also below the news story that "Jihadi John" may well have been killed in an air raid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be posted but the linked article si in terrible shape. It doesn't even explain well what IS the current situation. Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Last week there was a story (quashed here) about the initial WADA announcement. Is that the same article as the one being discussed here? If not, it should be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support article is in acceptable shape. Event significant enough. sst✈discuss 03:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support seems pretty obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shall we pull this? The article looks poor, and I don't see how "acceptable" the shape is. George Ho (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to adjust the article to your taste, this is Wikipedia, you don't need to ask for permission to improve articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we not supposed to feature a poor quality article in the Main Page? I don't see why quality is used to normally not feature articles, but somehow quality of the article may be misinterpreted. George Ho (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I notice that some portions are exactly copied from this source. George Ho (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, it would be more helpful to the community if you actually helped fix the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you also do it? Re-editing it wasn't easy, and I had to notify the person about adding such copyrighted material. --George Ho (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Paris shooting/bombing

 * Support notability, obviously, massive multiple attacks which are now suggested to include 18 dead, in a country where gun-toting freedom is unacceptable. The article needs work, but as soon as it meets the minimum acceptable quality, it should be posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This implies that this would have been non-notable if it had happened in another country (i.e. one where "gun-toting freedom" is acceptable). The obvious political swipe is beneath comment, but even on the face of it, what a profoundly cruel thing to say.  I really wish you'd think before you speak so recklessly, especially when it isn't even tangentially related to the story or how you voted. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN has regularly ignored war event, like the taking of strategic cities with many dead, with a "meh, business as usual for the Middle Eastern chaos". I personally disagree with that de facto policy, but it is de facto policy. Thue (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. Article has just about everything (i.e. very little) that media currently know. LjL (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose in current state. Much must be learnt on perpetrator and motive &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This will be the biggest news story for many days to come, and possibly weeks. Article very sketchy, as noted, but I agree we should post as quickly as it gets to a decent level. Jus  da  fax   22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, article will develop rapidly due to mass interest. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * post-posting support. In obviously notable cases like this, where the article will obviously be massively updated as more information becomes available, I think it is perfectly fine to post at this stage. Thue (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This should have been posted very very quickly, and it was. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose. The article is pretty much a skeleton at this point. Certainly later when we know more about this incident but this feels rushed to me. The ITN section should be showcasing Wikipedia content like any other MP section, not rushing to cover breaking stories. — foxj 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, bollocks I'm afraid. We're talking about dozens of people killed, this needs to be posted (as was) and needs to be updated accordingly.  This is Europe, not America, most uncommon and will be headlining for days to come.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Heck, it's so notable that it might have been posted even if it had happened in America. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's true, if a co-ordinated attack at different locations which resulted in multiple deaths had taken place in the US, I'd probably be in favour of supporting it at ITN, unlike the daily mass shootings that take place in just one location courtesy of the amendment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we cut it out with the unwarranted jabs at the US? They're entirely unnecessary. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was making the point that multiple shootings occur every day in the US and not in Europe. Bongwarrior took the point further.  Feel free to collapse this sideline detritus as typical US mass shooting nonsense, as we see every day.  In the meantime, the posting of this item was exactly right.  This kind of thing doesn't happen in the civilised world, and it's shocking to the core. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 9/11? 3,000 dead? But yes, even the amount of organization of Paris 2015 alone makes this exceedingly notable. Damn terrorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Was 9/11 a multiple mass shooting? I didn't think so.  Move on please.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The London bombings of 2005? 52 dead? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you deaf, or unable to read or something else? Bombings aren't mass shootings.  Move along now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says this event was both shootings and explosions (3 of them). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So what does 9/11 have to do with this? Or are you unable to discuss a terrorist attack without dragging that up?  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You said this kind of thing doesn't happen in a the (typo) civilized world and I gave at least one example where it did. Is it really that important if it's mass shooting instead of bombing or a building falling on you? You'd still be dead and I was nitpicking that this scale of mass death does happen in the civilised world (at least twice once before). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The attackers, be it 9/11 or today, are not civilized. Also, while shootings happen frequently in the US, I can't recall any significant Islamist-driven terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, while they continue to happen in countries where citizens are not allowed to own guns. So there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the article and its not thin now, but I'm going to assume that even if it had only 4-6 sentences of text, as long as it was confirmed by a source like the BBC that it involved what appeared to be multiple simultaneous bombings and the taking of hostages, it was going to be ITN; details are going to be thin but obviously this is the type of current event that we know will be notable and we should hasten to get eyes to help out with it as was the case on the Boston Marathon Bombing a few years ago. The article's in good shape now, in any case. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - We are seeing the death toll climb alarmingly in the past hour. I am seeing reports as high as 50. Any solid numbers should be updated responsibly on the blurb. Jus  da  fax   22:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * best to stick with confirmed totals from the French police for now since media reports will fluctuate wildly. Whenever media cites them directly, we can update it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 100 hostages mentioned in the article. That should be in the blurb, in my view. Extremely serious development. Jus  da  fax   22:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well since things are moving on, it's probably just detail that's unnecessary. It appears there's another location that's been attacked.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's unnecessary. There's far too much going on right now to focus on a single event, as horrific as each one is. I've updated the blurb to reflect the confirmed 40 deaths, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for obvious reasons. epic genius (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment contrary to my previous statement, it might be worth mentioning that President Hollande has ordered the closure of the nation's borders. Thoughts? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the closure is blurb-worthy. Huge development. Jus  da  fax   23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course post-posting support and update with closing the borders. This is a major terrorist attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the calls to update the blurb, closure of the borders is most unusual. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that closing the borders is a drastic, significant step, but I think that the criticality of the news story is already there by what we have now; if anything, a more critical fact is 100 ppl being held hostage still, which should be in the blurb. --M ASEM (t) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is, that implies that this is an ongoing/developing story, and will help draw more people to help edit/improve, over the border closure. --M ASEM (t) 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps where you live closing borders is easy, but in France, quite the opposite. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the Sky News feed and their expert said this is the first time a nation has closed its borders since the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And it will be extraordinarily difficult for that to happen properly given the land borders that are usually not monitored between France and the rest of mainland Europe. Hence the futility of Masem's comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not trying to diminish the action of closing the borders, but the fact that there are known to be people still at potential harm, to me, is much more serious than the reactions, even one as serious as closing the border, since those reactions aren't going to help those hostages right now. As it reads in as short a blurb we have, it makes it sound like something severe happened and people reacted and the major apparent threat is gone, but that's not the case. Now, if it is the case that the hostage situation will be dealt with in the next few hours, sure, then the border closure is the big point to attach in the blurb. --M ASEM (t) 23:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * TLDR, you said "Not that closing the borders is a drastic, significant step". Move on now, and try to be more succinct.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Media gag request apparently made by police regarding the hostage situation. Likely will be resolved relatively soon as that's the general signal of a raid (which was just reported by AFP as I type). The border closure will have large-scale ramifications (not that this tragedy won't on its own) that will extend far beyond the immediate gruesome actions. I believe Germany has already confirmed the closure between the two nations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're behind the times, the raid on the hostages has already started. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And now it's over. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, the consideration of border closure is noteworthy.epic genius (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Photo suggestion - Though numbed, we continue. The article has a picture of the Bataclan concert hall where many died. Suggest we go with that as the photo. Jus  da  fax   01:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added the picture used in the article. Wish there was more space to give it context but the blurb is rather long as-is... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good, thanks. You might make the word "shooting" plural, to acknowledge there were multiple attack points, but it's a small point compared to the photo. Thanks again. Jus  da  fax   02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post posting Support. Note that Nytimes says border controls are only "Tightened" not closed entirely. I believe this was a clarification issued recently by a French agency. -- Callinus (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Based on what I've read online, I think at this point it would be reasonable to revise the blurb to something like this:
 * 'Islamic State' claims responsibility for attacks that killed 128 people in Paris (Bataclan theatre pictured).
 * Sca (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support updating the blurb to reflect that RSes are pointing out that ISIS has claimed responsibility. --M ASEM (t) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Nigerian President announces Cabinet

 * support ALTBLURB itd be more notable with context (And youve got the 6 months of instability). Also I changed the wikilnk to the updated one.
 * comment We posted last Australian and Canadian and UK election more than once (one before the most recent). And Nigerian is Commonwealth too.
 * btw- this is from 11 November. I updated befoe.Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add your links analysis to the page.Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment You have substantially changed by nom by changing both the target article and the blurb. Could you make those alternative options instead of replacing my suggestions with yours?? Thanks MurielMary (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * TRYING to improve it but okey I changed it.Lihaas (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Cabinet appointments are a routine part of assuming a presidency(though I concede it is unusual to appoint one's self to a position).  I'm not seeing what makes this stand out- and it's not top level news from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unusual for the time frame and the self-appointment, but cabinet appointments are still a routine process after a leadership change. --M ASEM (t) 16:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose results of elections or other changes in heads-of-state are usually posted, the minutiae of organizing a cabinet usually haven't been posted in the past. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Only notable aspect is how delayed this was and that Buhari appointed himself to a position, otherwise it's a routine procedure in any nation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose banana republic acts like a banana republic. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Myanmar election

 * I have since updated the article's lead that vote officials have declared the winner. Most of the results are in the article's infobox, although all results won't be updates for a few days.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case well hae to wait for a few days. it wont be stale because the news is when its announced. Can renom them.Lihaas (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is rather a shame since CNN has reported it will take at least two weeks for all results to be tabulated. I sense there isn't much certainty on the timescale. Hopefully if is in a couple of weeks, the article will be in top shape.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The results most certainly we be stale if we wait. Now that NLD has crossed the 66% threshold for a majority, the result is certain and the rest is just a matter of how big the majority. No-one will report when the very last seat is called (especially since the vote in a few constituencies is postponed due to violence). By this logic, we should have waited four weeks to post the results of the 2010 UK General Election because Thirsk and Malton's results were delayed. Article could do with more explicit referencing, but it's better shape than many election articles we post. Smurrayinchester 11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it may be preferred to use the term "gain" rather than "win" for an election blurb. An electoral majority is not a prize to be won nor an award to be bestowed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This delay in releasing the full results in interminable. By the time we get every single seat back the overall result will be old news. In that situation the natural point to post is once the majority is reached - regardless of what happens with the remaining seats that cannot be changed. That's the point we're at now, so I think we should go ahead and post it. As long as the article makes it clear that there are still seats to declare, we're not misleading anyone. I also support saying 'gains' rather than 'wins', not for the reasons WaltCip gave but because there is a change - we wouldn't say gains if a party was simply renewing and existing majority (perhaps 'regains' in that situation). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. Someone upload the photo, please. --Tone 14:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support this should have gone up once the ruling junta conceded. The news is not so much the specific races, but that an election was allowed at all, that Aung San Suu Kyi was not excluded from the race, and that there will be a peaceful transition of power. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There were 2 supports. While its ITNR he timing is aso relevant.Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Jihadi John

 * wait till confirmed. If so RD could suit as he was top of his field in raving lunatics (wed post the more infamous serial killers if they were around durng ITN I suppose).Lihaas (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting "suspected to be killed"; should wait for confirmation of some kind. As I understand it the US government only believes that it has killed him, and does not know for sure. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait - We need confirmation. If this does happen, it won't be just an RD - it's a blurb story. --M ASEM (t) 17:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest this is withdrawn. If it is confirmed at some point, we can always reconsider it. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Beirut Bombings

 * Support given further expansion of the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support unusually high death toll makes event sadly significant. Article seems developed enough? MurielMary (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Youre welcome ;)Lihaas (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Brandmeistertalk  12:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted – Used the low end of the toll (37) as to not conflict with the article and added injuries (200+) to the blurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflicted Post-Posting Support A minor nit is a lack of source on the background section but that's easily verified by the main-linked article on that section, so not an issue towards ITN posting. --M ASEM (t) 17:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Florent Groberg awarded Medal of Honor

 * Oppose To be clear, Groberg is the 13th recipient of the MOH of all those that served in the Afghan War, not the 13th MOH overall, which numbers in the thousands. This is not a rarity as to be a significant ITN item. --M ASEM  (t) 20:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I clearly wrote. Additionally, my suggested blurb is that he is the first foreign-born from this war. 2.5 million have served in this Afghan War; only 13 have won the MOH and only one is a naturalized citizen. How is that not rare? —Мандичка YO 😜 21:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your third blurb is had been written in a manner that could be read that it is the 13th medal overall, not just from the war. And while many serve in the war and there's only a few honored, the fact that there's thousands of MoHs out there shows that the overall award is not necessarily a rarity. --M ASEM (t) 21:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose 13th of the Afghan War is not that notable. I don't think being born in France make him that much more special. HaEr48 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support – Mainly because the current listing is becoming stale. Oldest entry is nearing the 10 day mark. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we needed a new entry that desperately, why not start an article on the Beirut bombing? HaEr48 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create it and nominate it, I'd likely support it for ITN. I'm not terribly comfortable writing articles outside my meteorology realm. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I very much doubt we would post the awarding of the top military honour in most other countries - we've had Victoria Cross nominations (which I've opposed), but I don't recall seeing similar nominations for other countries. Yet what makes this more significant than the top military honour of, say, Russia? I don't see that him being French-born changes matters. In any case, why the tendency to privilege top military honours over top civilian ones? Is the Medal of Honour any more important than the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Yet we don't get nominations for most awards of the latter. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be the last person to oppose an ITN for a similar person from Russia nor would I oppose the Victoria Cross or Medal of Freedom. Medal of Freedom and Medal of Honor are equivalent. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't say I find this significant or interesting enough. The citation for the award is a great act of individual bravery, but didn't lead to anything decisive either. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not important or significant in his field. It's kind of interesting that he's the first foreign-born recipient but more of an "interesting trivia fact" than ITN which seems to aim at "important world events". MurielMary (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I considered closing this on the 12-hour mark, but here's a pile-on instead. I wouldn't consider national awards to be ITN material. What might've swayed me would have been the context of the award, yet this seems to be your run-of-the-mill 'soldier winning an honour for heroism' type medal. Notable enough for an article, just not significant enough for ITN. Maybe try DYK? Fuebaey (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Philthy Animal Taylor

 * Oppose on article quality. Key member of a very well-known band during their best-known work.  Would support on significance, but the article quality is well below what I would want on the main page.  Large swaths of the biography have no references.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on importance, don't see how he meets the RD criteria of "a very important figure in his/her field". No awards or hit songs in his career. MurielMary (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements - Importance there, but poorly sourced for a BLP. --M ASEM (t) 20:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose a popular member of a popular band, like Baby Spice or Andrew Ridgeley, but without any awards noted in his article, a clear and obvious fail on the notability required to be significant in the field of music. Popularity and well-known-ness does not equate to encyclopedic notability near or at the top of a specific field.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, certainly cant post a spurs fan...uggh! (although shes cute)Lihaas (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As stated, being well known does not equate to being "very important" to a field.  Article is poor shape as well. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could buy Lemmy specifically, but just being in a popular band isn't enough on its own. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] MRJ Maiden Flight

 * Weak oppose. Other than being designed and produced in Japan I don't really see what is significant about this aircraft, and I don't really see how being designed and produced in Japan makes it notable.  Its article states that Fuji Heavy Industries already makes aircraft in Japan.  News coverage of this seems limited.  I think China's C919 got more coverage, and that wasn't posted. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The US, China, Germany, UK, and Brazil make airliners (Category:Airliners by country) but Japan did not for 50 years (and that one was a failure and the one before that was pre-war). So if Japan makes an airliner then the biggest economy in the world that doesn't make airliners goes from the 3rd biggest to the 8th (or 9th or 10th if you count this failure). Even Sweden with 7% of Japan's population made airliners that still fly today in places like Britain and Russia (Saab 2000). The New York Times says the plane is basically a Japanese government plan to revitalize the country’s lagging economy (which the Japanese call the Lost Two Decades). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * C919 says it came off the assembly line the day of the CNN article and hasn't flown yet which is a very early stage (I didn't realize that). So it's too early to use the Chinese plane as precedent (and that wouldn't be possible anyway if the Japanese plane reaches all milestones first). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. It's interesting, but not really newsworthy in an ITN context.  Perhaps a DYK?  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not qualified for DYK, unless someone wants to guide it through WP:GAN, by which time this tidbit will be very stale. G RAPPLE   X  13:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "Did you know that the MRJ was the first airliner designed and produced in Japan in 50 years?" doesn't need to be not stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man, the article must be very newly created or most recently expanded for DYK. This ain't it. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As has already been mentioned, newly promoted to GA qualifies an article for DYK as well. BencherliteTalk 22:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite, I think I get how it works George Ho. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems rather promotional —Мандичка YO 😜 20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess first flight is bit early and therefore promotional. Maybe renominate the first airline taking delivery or the first flight carrying the general public? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bravo for the paint design, wish we could promote it for that Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - not a big deal, but it's something. Banedon (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Good enough shape, event significant enough. sst✈discuss 03:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is DYK material. Notability nowhere near ITN level. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: André Glucksmann

 * Oppose article not in good enough shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added sources to his works section. If that doesn't satisfy, can you give me some more specific area in needed of improvement. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What did he do between 1977 and ~2000? There seems to be a huge coverage gap between "early years" and then the Philosophy and Activism sections.  Spencer T♦ C 18:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added info during his activities during the 1980s and 1990s. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support article is sufficient for the main page, though if one were looking for ways to improve the article, WP:LEAD would recommend a more comprehensive summary of his work. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with update; aa glance at his French article shows his relative importance, and his bibliography does not skip his activity during any period. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment On the subject of content gaps, does anyone not find it odd that a French Jewish child survived WWII with no mention of the obvious elephant? Fuebaey (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed that, --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I've enhanced the section that deals with his early life, to show his brush with the Holocaust. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Discovery of the furthest observed solar system object

 * Support - significant discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with BabbaQ. Banedon (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting discovery and the article is in good shape. Jus  da  fax   10:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Nothing fancy, but this is one of newsworthy discoveries. Should be posted soon before it becomes stale, especially in light of bad things happening in one day. Marking as ready. --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Let's get this posted. Clear astronomical significance per Eris precedent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted: I've tweaked the blurb.  Feel free to re-tweak. Jehochman Talk 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Gene Amdahl

 * Oppose on article quality. Article is in dreadful shape, large swaths of it are unreferenced. Totally unacceptable for main page inclusion.  Would support on significance easily, so if you can clean up the article, I would support posting it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements RD met, but nearly entire bio is unsourced. --M ASEM (t) 19:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[Attention needed] RD: Allen Toussaint

 * Weak support on the merits, as he seems to be in three halls of fame and has influenced others, but oppose on quality as there are many citation issues in the article. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on importance. Long and important career. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with article improvements Importance for RD appears met, but I see a lot of CN tags, and even if those were added just recently (after this ITNC), we're still missing a lot of citations. Also, some of the formatting of the lists in the bottom half is a bit weird, and I'm not a huge fan how how the covers are presented (you'd think these would go on notable songs, or perhaps better to collapse as a list of "Toussaint song - list of bands that covered it". --M ASEM (t) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements - Basically speaks for itself. Meets criteria, but article needs to be fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Importance is clear as noted, and some love for the article would help get this posted to RD. Jus  da  fax   19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Question how does this death meet the criteria "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? He was inducted into two national halls of fame, each of which induct 15-20 people per year, and one state hall of fame. Does that denote "very important"? There are a *lot* of people in those halls of fame .... Also according to the article he had seven notable songs? Not sure how this is significant enough when a screenwriter with an Oscar nomination for a massive hit movie wasn't considered notable enough for RD? (i.e Melissa Mathison, writer of E.T) MurielMary (Note, this question is not asked bitterly as in "why didn't "my nom" get approval", it's asked to genuinely understand the standards! TIA) (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing the "importance" here. He had a "long" career, so what?  I also don't see any real evidence that he was "a very important figure" in the field of music.   Lots of unreferenced material in the article needs to be addressed if this is to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Highly recognizable name in the field of music.  There's a few cn tags, but the article seems mostly referenced.  I don't see anything contentious, and it has improved considerably since the initial nomination.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. Produced lots of music, but I just don't see how he could be described as one of the worlds' top musicians. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Jayron, the RD criteria are "important name" not "recognisable name" - huge difference MurielMary (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been several instances lately where "popular" or "recognisable" or "long-standing" or "long career" are used to justify a support for RD. Clearly they're all wrong.  But you can't please all of the people all of the time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Influential figure across several genres of music. Blythwood (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Very influential songwriter and producer.  Article now improved.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support He was important enough for his death to have been noted on national TV network news.
 * Support: As is said, article is much improved; has been reported by other national media. Personally, he was notable enough just for producing the recorded version of Jessie Hill's song ""Ooh Poo Pah Doo", which has spawned over 100 cover versions by other notable musicians.  Thanks.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 19:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be useful if some of these ardent supporters spent some time fixing the issues with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of us already have done. If you want to criticise other editors, please be more specific in your criticism - and, feel free to edit the article yourself.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you itemize which issues in the article text would keep this off the main page? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno, call me a cynic, but if you guys can't see the bit that says This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2015) then I don't know what else to tell you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Citations have been provided for 90% of that material. Most of the rest (not all, but most) is both uncontentious and relatively unimportant.  None have been specifically challenged - not one - but, if people feel it's important to remove those facts, they can.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – This is certainly one time where certain editors' "everything is bullshit" attitude isn't serving readers. To boot, I'm catching a faint whiff of dismissing him as a "local celebrity".  The music of New Orleans, and specifically the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, have a cultural reach far beyond New Orleans, even if that significance may not translate very well to non-fans.  While many of the associated events of Jazzfest are dominated by the jam band scene, Toussaint has been a pivotal part of the festival itself for most of its history.  There's also what other editors have already pointed out: an active career spanning well over a half century, the significance of many of his songwriting and production credits, the breadth of artists who have recorded their own versions of those works.  In more recent history, there are the collaborations with Elvis Costello and others, in which Toussaint was brought into the project specifically due to his stature as a revered elder statesman of the music world. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  09:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Helmut Schmidt

 * Support --Josef Papi (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is clear. The Helmut_Schmidt section however needs to be broken up and/or significantly trimmed. --LukeSurlt c 14:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is the biggest headache. Far too detailed especially considering the poor sourcing. I'll hit the library later today and tomorrow to sort this out with biographies of his and newspaper articles, but that'll take some time. I'll probably cut the article down first, so that it will be in a shape to post on the main page and then expand again with well sourced prose. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Heavily influential until his death and most likely also afterwards. --Constructor 14:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Top part is decent, rest needs work (refs/culling). I switched off after three page scrolls down the Chancellor section. Cabinet section should be split off. If anyone still doesn't know who this is: West German Chancellor 1974-82. Fuebaey (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Obvious. As a key political figure in recent European history, Schmidt may merit a Blurb. He was very old, but he kept on making political comments and popped up in the news now and then into his 90s. Sca (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality only. Perusing the article, there's numerous quality issues that need fixing, but only one, right now, is (in my mind) keeping this off the main page: The paragraphs in the "Personal Life" section are largely unreferenced.  That one thing would need to be fixed.  Otherwise, he's clearly a major political figure and would merit mentioning on the main page.  I'm agnostic on the difference between a blurb and an RD posting.  From my perspective, this should NOT be posted until the personal life section is referenced properly, after that it could be posted to the main page (which isn't to say that it is perfect, but the glaring lack of cites in that one section is a major issue).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but he does otherwise qualify for RD. A few sections aren't referenced at all. All sections should have at least some references. Mamyles (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements. Deserves at least an RD and a blurb might be called for. Jus  da  fax   16:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Article needs work, but should we not be aiming for a Blurb here ? Jheald (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. Sca (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , refs added to the Personal Life section Sca (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good enough. I've gone in myself and deleted a bit of fluff that was uncited too.  Support for posting, still agnostic on blurb vs. RD.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb he is one of the few heads of state that had an actual impact on the whole world. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb Schmidt was unambiguously one of the most powerful people in the world during the 1970s and 1980s and one who made a lasting impact in the post-World War II history of Germany. The news is also on the top across the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as notable European leader in the 70s and early 80s. Capitalistroadster (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - Presided over West Germany during one of the most pivotal eras in European history.--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If he had been president, he certainly wouldn't have made an impact ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Preside can also mean "be in the position of authority in a meeting or gathering."--WaltCip (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Es geht ohne [was zu] sagen. Week support as to a blurb, since I doubt it adds much, but he certainly deserves picturing. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That phrase does not work in German. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about now? My informant advised me to make the correction I put in brackets. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that this is English language Wikipedia, and while this is tres drole, it's not helpful at all. And I guess by "week" you mean "weak"?  Finally, I'm not sure how you would expect him to be "pictured" without a blurb.   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said only "week" support for a blurb, to get the photo. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There are still some refs missing in the award section, I will try to provide as many as possible. Then there is the issue of the Domestic reforms section. Should we just block that out for now? I feel the most important parts of his chancellor years are covered above. Any thoughts on that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At 3,800 words Domestic Reforms is obviously too long & detailed for English-speaking readers. Suggest we (you) shovel it into a sidebar ref'd under See also in main article. Later some guter Mensch (Who?) could summarize it for main article. Sca (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that blocking it out for now is a good option, which I have done now. Leaves some refs without page numbers in the Chancellor section... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb on article improvements, Support RD now - There is more sourcing that can be done, but this is far from a badly sourced article. I do feel that to highlight it as a blurb now it does need a bit more work, but as an RD, the update is clearly there, the sourcing is in a state that users can see where stuff is needed. I recognize there's a orange tag or two on it, but for purposes of posing this, if those were removed (still noting its not perfect), I could support the RD now. I would support this as a full blurb in terms of importance to the world at large were in a tad better shape. --M ASEM (t) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - Sourcing looks acceptable now. At least as important as Thatcher, definitely full blurb. Fgf10 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - Contributing architect of the world as it is now. One of the most important individuals in the last 40 years &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Major Cold War politician. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb A major political figure, but not quite at the very high level required for a blurb, in my opinion. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - With 87 citations, the article is definitely not poorly referenced. The supposedly missing page numbers to those in its Chancellor section constitute a non-issue, as most are to periodicals or websites. (Currently listed in the RD sections of D, F, NL, CZ, DK and N Wikis.) Sca (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb Stephen 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Late support RD, pull blurb. Significant historical figure, but his death will not have any immediate present-day impact. He was long out of office and public life. RD is the correct place for this kind of nomination - the fact that we may have messed this up with other politicians in the past should not force us to make the same mistake twice. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just want to note that the newest blurb at the time this was posted was from over 6 days ago. While I agree that this would not usually be a blurb, all of the other blurbs in ITN are pretty much stale. Let this be an exception. Mamyles (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Schmidt was a genius, but not a very modest one. He did not suffer perceived fools. gladly. Sca (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Per Mamyles. Schmidt was an important figure during a significant era. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Second-day comment – Schmidt article drew 48,000 views on Tuesday. Sca (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The downside of all the attention.. Horrible edits on the article today. Please keep an eye on it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 60,000-plus Wednesday, thus 100,000 in two days. Sca (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pat Eddery

 * Support once article sufficiently updated and sourced. One of the leading flat-racing jockeys of all time in Britain and Ireland, his 11 British championships are a joint-record (plus one in Ireland), he rode numerous big race winners across a career lasting more than 30 years and only one other jockey has ridden more lifetime winners in Great Britain. As noted by the nominator, the article requires some work to be fit to be linked from the front page. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support what Bcp67 said. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; seems to be "very important" to his field. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as meeting the RD criteria, but oppose on current article quality. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Winner of Grade 1 stakes (the highest level of horse racing) in three different continents. Based on awards won and races won, probably the best jockey in the sport from the late 70's through the 80's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on updates The RD importance is there but there needs more inline sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I'm working on improvements, adding sources etc.  Tigerboy1966  21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Greatly improved by Tigerboy1966. Finnegas (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article in good shape and meets RD criteria. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable jockey and article is much improved. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Major wins sections needs sourcing improvement before this can be posted. The section is, at the time of this comment, entirely unsourced. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need for sourcing "Major wins" when each of the Race wins points to an article on Wiki that has the jockey's name included for the particular year. Maok3 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if the article that's pointed to actually provides a reliable source to verify the claim. Have you checked each one?  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)\
 * Yes, the only one missing was the Derby from Slovakia to which I've just added a reference. Maok3 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-marking ready: Let's get this posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Andy White

 * Oppose Not very important in his field. Looks like more than half of his bio is dedicated to his brief membership with the band, and not so much about the rest of his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Beatles are obviously a huge phenomenon, and the two surviving members will probably be blurb candidates, but I just don't think this qualifies. He was slightly more significant to the Beatles than I had realized: he played with them only one time, but that one time was the recording of the Beatles' first single. There are maybe two or three "Fifth Beatles" that I think would have a legitimate shot at an RD listing, but because White's career appears to have consisted mostly of backing up other, more notable performers, I don't think his brief association with the band is enough on its own. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I really hope they would go in RD, not blurbs. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu + Bongwarrior. Just not really that important with that casual a connection to the Beatles. --M ASEM (t) 03:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Famous for something he didn't do: be the drummer in the world's most successful band. His involvement was very minor and ended before they did anything particularly notable. Near misses aren't enough for RD in my opinion. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] WADA report

 * Support on the merits once we figure out what to update and when it is updated; a notable finding in the world of international sports. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a recommendation, nothing legally binding. If it does result in Russia's suspension from a major event, that would be big news. --M ASEM (t) 15:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just a recommendation(though it is in part), but a finding that Russia is "non-compliant" with global anti-doping rules, which WADA deals in. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading the news articles, the report, while from the world body that manages doping issues, still is making a lot of allegations that have not been otherwise proven in any court of law. The Olympic committee, for example, could decide to make a decision to ban Russia from the next Games without having any legal proof, but that's the news story, not that there's been a report that has said there's allegations of doping. Note that I'm not saying that the report is necessarily false or misleading, just that its a report from one sporting agency body and not proof otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 15:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - ITN generally supports posting of press releases of things that haven't happened yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that we should wait to see what, if anything, comes of this. For now it is simply a disputed allegation. Mamyles (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A recommendation means nothing; to use an example from the NFL in the United States, the Wells Report all but recommended a suspension for Tom Brady which was promptly overturned upon appeal in a court of law.--WaltCip (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the NFL is so incestuous and introverted that that's an unfair comparison. We're actually talking about international sport here, not just a parochial decision that has no relevance to anything or anyone outside the US.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the NFL is a tiny regional sport when compared to the rest of the world, there's no doubt about that. In no way was I suggesting that anything that goes on in the NFL has any sort of international notability; it doesn't. However, I was merely making an analogy with regards to independent fact-finders and the actual impact they have.--WaltCip (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't mind TRM. He's still upset a tiny regional sport (played in more than one country is regional?) is more popular than his boat race. It was a fine analogy.Correctron (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary; the Boat Race is an internationally hailed event hallmarking some very highly prestigious universities.--WaltCip (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If anything is actually done about this other than "recommend" would be a much, much bigger news story. I recommend waiting until some tangible suspensions or public scorn comes out of this. Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Soviets using steroids? I am shocked!  But seriously, can we get a clear rationale here on who this anti-doping agency is, and whence Russia is to be blocked?  Is this from all international competition? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The consensus not to post reports, only actions. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why do proposed business mergers get posted, when nothing has happened? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Two-fold: mergers are generally "good" news and not making allegations of wrong-doing as this report is doing, and because of that, when it actually occurs, there's rarely a blink; on the other hand, if there is action on this report (read: the banning of Russian athletes from a major competition) that will be newsworthy. --M ASEM (t) 06:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Heinzkraft merger was good news for Warren Buffet, who made a record profit, but as I argued at the time, has only meant layoffs for his employees (and just in time for Thanksgiving). μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And if a proposed business deal actually happens, then it's newsworthy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would state that business deal announcements typically get more news coverage at the announcement than when the transaction occurs; then the argument is that the transaction is not in the news, resulting in few if any business stories being posted(though a couple announcements did get through recently). I would concede that this is a different situation, since the taking of any action here (i.e. banning Russia even partly from the Olympics) would get much coverage. Though I realize this is looking like it will not be posted, this is more than a mere announcement, but an official finding of noncompliance. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose May be worth reconsidering if Russia is suspended.  Spencer T♦ C 04:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. The news is about a recommendation but not about suspension.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I understand waiting for stronger punishment, but WADA has now revoked the accreditation of Russia's anti-doping lab.  331dot (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - the big news is the revelation by an official body that doping in Russia is widespread, pervasive, and supported by the highest structures. 87.154.210.163 (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. No actions taken (yet). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Myanma elections

 * Strong support - however as I mentioned in one of the previous nominations, is that (Myanma) the correct spelling of the country or is it a typo?? MurielMary (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Myanma is the demonym. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  11:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but not quite yet. Post when official results show whether the NLD have majorities or just pluralities in both houses of Parliament, or when the results are complete (and the article is appropriately updated to report this). --LukeSurlt c 17:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Patience ITN/R doesn't need support to earn its spot, and the results tables are empty. Though I realize many are eagerly following this story, it may even be wise to hold out for several hours even when we do have results, as I am under the impression that this election carries considerable implications and may be contested (or am I mistaken?).  I don't suggest unreasonable delay, just caution not to let it become a ticker. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, hence the oppose. Perhaps some people don't quite get the concept of ITNR, but actually supporting it before it's ready is incompetent.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the actual results are available. So far only a handful of seats have declared. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once results are in. Big shift in the politics in the former Burma. Jus  da  fax   16:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Croatian elections

 * Support once results are confirmed. Currently the headline is so-and-so is "thought to have won". MurielMary (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is "Sabor" a well-known English word? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not well-known, but an educated reader could work out the meaning from the context of the sentence in the blurb, and could also click on the link to find out more detail. MurielMary (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you could use a normal English word and not treat the reader like a jerk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By using a non-English word, with an easy link to the meaning for those who don't know it, it's an opportunity to open the reader's mind to something new .... educate them on the diversity of the world beyond their everyday. That's the power of knowledge. Depends whether ITN is into "dumbing down" or "lifting up". MurielMary (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're arguing for intellectual arrogance instead of informing the reader. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sabor is a redirect to the common English name Croatian Parliament. "Sabor" is sometimes used in English sources but even the English version of the offical site calls it the Croatian Parliament. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it's a redirect anyway, it would be better just to have the actual article name instead of making the reader do the work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements A few sections are weak in sourcing, and one section just presents data without any prose. --M ASEM (t) 03:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note there is still no up-to-date results table. HaEr48 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] MotoGP

 * Support article quality seems sufficient at a quick once-over. (P.S. picture most likely won't make it since we have a more recent news item with a picture already)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The only section that seems undersourced is the Changes section, but this would be something that would seem relatively easy to fill in and not contentious, the rest of the article is well sourced and looks ready for posting. --M ASEM (t) 16:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough. sst✈discuss 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Not as detailed as the F1 season article, but definitely sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lorenzo's article is not updated. Nergaal (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So fix it. It isn't the target of the blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Myanmar votes in Freest Elections in a Quarter Century
Gsnxn (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Added a couple more links in defense of my thought that this is a more significant event that your every-day parliamentary election in most states. Gsnxn (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also 2011–12 Myanmar political reforms should probably be renamed simply "Myanmar political reforms" (is there a word like 'perestroika' for what is happening in Myanmar?). cf http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16546688
 * Oppose as suggested, we typically post the results of such elections, we don't editorialise on the election itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gsnxn, I doubt anyone disagrees that this is a far more significant national election than most, but the point is we don't editorialise. No-one will disagree that the results should be posted, but not this kind of blurb. Redverton (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * support - all rules are meant to be broken. This is a special case with a specially interesting and important election. Of course it should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)ys
 * I'm not sure if you speak/understand English or understand how ITNR or ITNC works, but we simply won't post an unreferenced blurb which strays into the editorialising that Ive already advised we don't do here. If you don't understand that, please let me know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose—the important thing here will either be the winner of the elections, or the military disregarding the result if it doesn't go their way. If this does run, Myanmar continues to march steadily, if carefully, towards democracy after decades of martial law, with its implication that democracy=progress, is certainly not appropriate as a wording. ‑ iridescent 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Freest"? The results should be posted, but not this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose When the results come in, then we post that, and without such obviously nonneutral commentary. I don't doubt this nomination was made in good faith, but actually posting such a blurb to ITN would be something of an outrage. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Yitzhak Navon

 * Comment: Notability is clear, but article is woefully underreferenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Article shows notability, plus meets RD criteria without a doubt, but the article needs improvement. Article is lowly referenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable, and not as well known as he should be. His contributions to Sefardic culture in Israel are underreported in the article. I'll see what I can manage, but people deserve to see this. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * comment we posted Yitzhak shamir to a full blurb (I remember doing up the page for his death). Though that might have been in the pre-RD era. Although we do have head of state on full blurb right now.At any rate, as RD its a given with precedence and "top of his field".Lihaas (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose insufficient referencing to be considered for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

WHO declared Sierra Leone free from Ebola

 * Oppose less ITN material and more Portal:Current events/2015 November 7 material, added. Victor Punta (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and propose alt blurb I after update of articles; not much has been added re: end of epidemic in Sierra Leone. A notable event in a wider saga that has been covered by popular news sources for over a year. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support  - notable subject. itn worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the last time this was suggested some new cases were announced within a week, if I am not mistaken. At this point there is a strong opinion that Ebola is basically endemic to West Africa, so posting that it is not currently active in just one of the countries in which it has appeared seems like an incremental, rather than a tipping point development. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Last time it was different country. This is for the first time in Sierra Leone. One conformed case is currently in neighbouring Guinea, so yes, it is possible, that isolated case will be bring back into country. However epidemic is over.--Jenda H. (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware that it was a different country. The principle still holds.  Just as it would hold if you wanted to post that the Andrea Doria was unsinkable, and I said they said that about the Titanic. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, proving that something doesn't exist is a very difficult thing. If we reject this on the grounds that "maybe it hasn't really been eradicated yet", then we would also have to reject things like the killing of Osama bin Laden (maybe he actually survived, see various conspiracy theories) or the extinction of any species (maybe there's still a population somewhere). The WHO felt confident enough to make this declaration, which should count for something. Banedon (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with BabbaQ. Banedon (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until WHO declares W Africa ebola-free. Nergaal (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support If Roger Daltrey gives the all-clear, then it's good enough for me.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Who?--WaltCip (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We won't get fooled again! μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Romanian protests
Add 2015 Romanian protests to update the blurb of Romanian PM's resignation? --George Ho (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The above was copypasted, without attribution, and has no substantive difference to Colectiv nightclub fire. Fuebaey (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can go to WP:AFD to learn steps about nominating the article for deletion, Fuebaey. --George Ho (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a redirect would be fine. You can go to WP:COPYPASTE and WP:ATTRIBUTE to learn what was done wrong here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not certain that 2015 Romanian protests has no future of its own, but at present I would not consider featuring it on the main page. Kiwi128 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to ongoing] Metrojet Flight 9268 investigations

 * Oppose While the flight recorder is consistent with a mid-air explosion, a bomb on the plane is not the sole explanation as these reports point out. The media is jumping at this story with rather poor reporting and wild speculations based on initial statements made by investigators. If it does turn out to be a bomb, that's an ITN, but we should not be re-adding this until we have more than just FUD being reported. --M ASEM (t) 07:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem, more ALTs are added. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a blurb and renamed the section, but I ironically oppose this nomination. Either method would attract wild guesses, like Masem said. Even I was close to nominating this until I found a mere flight data recorder, as said in previous nomination, is not sufficient enough to prove a bomb. George Ho (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @George Ho Hmmm... that's why I had proposed it as a ongoing only nomination. Didn't want to editorialize it on the main page. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Still Oppose blurb, but I am now convinced that a mere mention of the ongoing event seems harmless. I did oppose restoring it back to "ongoing", but those were wrong times to do restore it so soon. Westerners say that it could have been a bomb by terrorists; Russians... do they publicly reject the claim? Wont' matter, weak oppose to ongoing just to make readers search for the aircraft disaster themselves. --George Ho (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You don't like the idea so you'll punish the readers by making them "search for the aircraft disaster themselves"? What use is that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Readers can search it on Google and Bing and Yahoo. As for quality mentioned earlier, like Masem said, reporting is "poor" and speculative. --George Ho (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Readers can search it on Google and Bing and Yahoo" applies to every link on the Main Page. By that logic, you'd abolish ITN altogether. (I can and have made a case for precisely that in the past, but as long as it exists we need a mechanism for deciding what goes on it.) &#8209; iridescent 09:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What, no! Why would I want ITN gone? And I would appreciate your refraining from twisting my logic again. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reporting is not poor nor particularly speculative. The CVR has recorded an explosion.  Airbus have confirmed that every aircraft system was functioning correctly up to the point that the CVR recorded an explosion.  British and American intelligence agencies are reporting that celebratory chatter has been picked up.  There's little left to debate here, your opinion is out of date.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think my opinion is outdated, I'll try to update my opposition as much as I can. Explosion is explosion. It does not mean a bomb... yet. It's just a recording of explosion. The investigation is ongoing, but I don't see how the reporting of investigation development meets quality standards of ITN other than being ongoing and recording of explosion and Russian flights suspended, both of which may not meet ITN standards. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You think airliners explode every day? 217.38.95.253 (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You said it precisely, it is ongoing, why you would vote against it to annoy our readers, I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all "ongoing" events have been posted. Most sports events never have been featured in Main Page as "ongoing" by ITN standards. I would honourably mention September 11 attacks, but I can't. Enough comparing, investigations on the airplane crash are prematurely developed as is. No major key actions have been made, even with the recorder and flight suspensions. --George Ho (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're entirely missing the point, the fact is that this is in the news, is affecting Egypt, Russia, and many other countries whose tourists are now stranded. It's ongoing.  We're here to help our readers find news items that they may find helpful, not to deliberately make them go and use Google to find the event that's all over their news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Investigations are part of aftermath of the crash. Probably instead of investigations, the aftermath in general should be nominated... separately, not in this section. The result in Ongoing ticker would come out as "Aftermath of Metrojet Flight 9268", but the aftermath consists of just investigations, flight suspensions, reactions, and corpse recoveries. The plane disaster was featured once deservingly, but I don't like the idea of posting a part or whole of aftermath as "Ongoing" in Main Page. Readers can search for this article or read news outside Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, yet again. ITN is here to help readers, not to drive them to a search engine.  Perhaps this is lost on you, maybe it's a language thing, but deliberately preventing our readers from reading about one of the most updated news stories in recent weeks is simply absurd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ongoing Given that this is the third active nomination of the event, I think a restoration to ongoing is in order... Incremental blurb updates are a bit much but it seems prolific enough to warrant ongoing for the time being. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * More ALTs are added Cyclonebiskit; your thoughts? George Ho (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still hold that ongoing is more appropriate. Any blurbs regarding the investigation would have to be annoyingly vague until a conclusive report is written and published. Kind of regret taking it down myself initially now, but what's done is done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no; don't regret it. The process was right. I haven't regretted proposing removal from "Ongoing" ticker. Timing to re-post it should be right. If re-posted, as how shall the name come out? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose in this form as it's a very active investigation and the story is changing and developing constantly. Something more general, such as the Alt Blurb I suggested in the other nomination, "Investigations continue into the cause of the crash of the Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 in Egypt." would cover any later developments. MurielMary (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about now, MurielMary? George Ho (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, MurielMary, I should put your ALT in the fresher nomination. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - alt blurb II is very sensible, if we are posting a blurb at all. Still inclined to go with ongoing only for now. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Add to ongoing per my opinion below. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you re-summarize your opinion, Rambling Man? A reader can't be forced to search your opinions from three section days ago (technically two days ago). --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who opens a second nomination, forcing others to cover the same ground twice... BencherliteTalk 08:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just added one blurb, Bencherlite. Kiwi did the nomination actually. --George Ho (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, all you need know is that this shouldn't have been removed from Ongoing in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have this incredible sense of deja-vu - a developing news story but nothing particularly blurb-worthy, covered in lots of news reports, plenty of constructive edits to the article? Sounds perfect to add to ongoing. I wonder why it wasn't added to ongoing when the blurb rotated off the main page? (Incidentally, "investigations continue" is not the stuff of an ITN blurb, because it says that there is nothing better to say, so it is a pretty firm indication that we are still in "ongoing" territory.) BencherliteTalk 08:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ongoing. An article which is being constantly updated as the situation changes and new facts come to light, but where there's not been a single huge development to warrant posting a fresh blurb? This is pretty much the canonical example of what "ongoing" is for. ‑ iridescent 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The crash was posted, no reason to post this story twice. 93.215.78.75 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, if the news item is still "ongoing". Of course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose best to stay away form media sensationalism and wait for investigation outcome.. Victor Punta (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We are simply linking an encyclopedic article, not making any kind of judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose so the plane blew up in midair. So what? Does this tell us anything new at all? I don't think so.72.184.151.24 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You win ITN first prise for missing the point here. 217.38.122.7 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, because all those airliners keep blowing up all the time. Stupid planes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Either IP's presence is coincidence, or the IP is disguised by a registered person with similar traits. I don't want to accuse someone; that would be bad faith. Moreover, shall TRM's attempts to rebut opposition be taken seriously? Looks like I'm not the only one oppose trying to make a point here. George Ho (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, again and again. If you think I'm related to the IPs, ask for a checkuser.  In the meantime, realise that your determination to prevent our readers from finding the articles that are in the news is directly contrary to the purpose of ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. I got the point: attract Western investigator's and politician's speculations, Russia's flight suspensions to Egypt, and inconclusive evidence to general readers, hoping for readers to read over and over without making Wikipedia the crystal ball (sorry, don't wanna link this) until something spectacular happens. The plane crash was already the point. You must thank me and others for removing the "ongoing" event from the Main Page for nearly four days. Meanwhile, our search engine, even when imperfect, can help readers look for the article with or without AutoComplete by typing related terms that might not be exact title of the article. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM has it right. And Wikipedia is not doing any speculating, only reporting on the speculation - which is being made by high-ranking officials, not conspiracy theorists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But WP does avoid rumormongering even when it comes from normally reliable sources. The potential that a commercial plane crash was something triggered by agents in the ISIS/Syrian war can easily be seen as something that Western countries of power would love to use to initiate action; the reaction of US and UK intelligence sources compared to the more cautious take that Egyptian and Russian sources who are on the ground there shows this to be trying to push for an ideal situation of events for them. And of course, being mostly covered in Western papers, the press is jumping along with that. This is very comparable to the Sony hack that the US quickly pointed a finger at North Korea though since then there's been a lot of counterevidence to that and little conclusive to their point. There is zero question that if the actual investigators determined that the plane was brought down by a bomb (regardless who placed it) that we make it an ITN story and the situation becomes much more serious. But we at en.wiki have to be careful of stories that are pushed and manufactured by the press to be more important than they are without firm evidence. That's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt at work, just as that failed attack on the French train a few months ago was played up. Which is why we have to keep in mind that we aren't a newspaper, while we keep up with current events, we should be writing them and in the case of ITN treating then with how the work becomes more encyclopedic with inclusion of current events. This current string of stories on this plane crash, which is not revealing any new truths just yet, is really poor for inclusion in WP at this point because it is wild speculation.  I still disagree this should be in ongoing for this reason, though clearly consensus is for it, but we need to remember that we're not here at ITN just to report on the loudest stories on the news, but to look with an encyclopedic eye on things which may mean we don't even touch on the loudest stories. --M ASEM  (t) 17:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "... deadliest both in the history of Russian aviation and within Egyptian territory. It is also the deadliest air crash involving an aircraft from the Airbus A320 family and the deadliest plane crash of 2015." The cause is still not resolved although 90% sure it was bomb. Not sure why it was taken off "In The News". 86.189.225.37 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Add to ongoing As it's ongoing.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ack! I truly don't understand this. The nominator of this posting is the same one who below told us that to promote the story would be racist?!?!?  Will some Admin please just add this to Ongoing already?  No need for a blurb.  Last I checked there were tens of thousands of people stranded in the Sinai because of this. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing Taking the three different nominations, the level of editing activity, the level of news reporting, and the amount of support at all of the nominations, I've added this to ongoing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll point out that the British press is giving some pretty detailed quotes of British intelligence sources saying that the bombers were overheard celebrating the explosion in London and Birmingham accents. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] China-Taiwan summit

 * Support - Huge story, per nom. Article decent at first glance. ITN-worthy, I'd say. Jus  da  fax   05:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I've slightly fixed the grammar ("since end of the" -> "since the end of the"), and I'd like to make a suggestion to change "leaders" to "presidents". To me, "leaders" feels like the blurb is trying to be too politically correct (in Chinese media outlets, calling Ma the Taiwan "president" is forbidden, so they use the euphemism "leader" instead). -- benlisquare T•C•E 06:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Benlisquare; let's not do euphemisms, especially in English. (My bad; I misread your comments.) Speaking of euphemisms, does Chinese Wikipedia do that? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - very significant story. Don't think the place they are meeting in needs mention, though; prefer Alt Blurb I without hotel metion. MurielMary (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * propose alt blurb 2 as per MurielMary. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb III. George Ho (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt Blurb III reads that it's the first time they've met in Singapore since the war (but they might have met elsewhere). Grammar isn't right. MurielMary (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb IV proposed as per MurielMary. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Still support Alt Blurb II as I think the mention of Singapore is distracting from the significance of the meeting happening at all. MurielMary (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb II - as per discussion above. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Double vote, but I can't strike it yet. George Ho (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just wanted it to be clear what my position was. Have made the double vote clearer. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment please can we stop creating so many alt blurbs. It makes deciding on a candidate so much more difficult.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What about most likely candidate then? George Ho (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Significant milestone in cross strait relations. Victor Punta (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. I think 4 will work best. Although, it could also be "In Singapore, presidents meet..." --Tone 17:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Request - Could we please bold the names of Xi Jinping and Ma Ying-jeou, since it is they the main story is about.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The bolding indicates which article is featured. The event qualifying for ITN is the meeting, not the people involved. Mamyles (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem that BabbaQ has entirely forgotten how ITN works. I'd be tempted to ask if the account is compromised... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Request - The blurb makes it look like it was the first time between the specififc two leaders. It is not obvious from the blurb that it was the first time any holder of either office met with each other since 1949. 176.92.242.33 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing: Southeast Asian haze

 * Comment This was originally posted at the end of September and removed about two weeks ago. While the event is undoubtedly still ongoing, I'm not seeing how the article has recently been updated beyond some standard copyediting. For what it is worth, I'd say the same thing about the European migrant crisis as well. Fuebaey (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for that perspective, I wasn't aware that it had been on so recently. MurielMary (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fuebaey. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Ri Ul-sol

 * Support with improvements: Seems to have been significant in the opaque and byzantine world of North Korean politics, at least to outside observers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait: Certainly sounds important, but an article whose main source is an unofficial blog with no credited author is not going to be posted. Blythwood (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with waiting but this is also going to go stale if we wait more than a day. The fact that we don't have corroboration from western press begs how important this figure was or if the death was legit.. --M ASEM (t) 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Greenpeace India

 * Comment - I wonder if Greenpeace India would be a more appropriate main article. Although it would require a major cleanup. Also wonder whether it would be worth mentioning in the blurb the wider context of India shutting down 9k other NGOs.  Kiwi128 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Startling and draconian Indian move with international implications. Jus  da  fax   05:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - also propose possible Alt Blurb as per Kiwi128's comment. MurielMary (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and propose alt blurb II - also happy with alt blurb I, but think it would be sensible to include a link to Greenpeace India. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I vote, how is Greenpeace relevant in the environmental field nowadays? There have been criticisms on this NGO. It has received media attention for years, but most of its activities appear futile to the effect. Has the NGO done something successful to affect people involved in the environment? George Ho (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite being a previous Greenpeace supporter, I'm personally inclined to agree with your skepticism of Greenpeace @George Ho. But many would disagree with our views and revoking a license for them to operate in India is notable in any case. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a synonym for newsworthiness. Many notable topics haven't gotten the ITN spotlight. There must be crackdowns on other NGOs in India. George Ho (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but I would say that in this case it is both a notable article and newsworthy topic at present. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated. I could possibly support posting an article on the crackdown as the main topic which mentions greenpeace as an example among others.  Otherwise we are basically just cheerleading for one "victim" among many. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Greenpeace is a well-known mainstream NGO, which makes some difference IMO.  But I certainly think that focusing on a broader trend would be more worthy of ITN.  Kiwi128 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we were to feature the general trend in NGO regulation in India, I think the most appropriate target article to update would be Non-profit laws of India. Kiwi128 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, although the article is refimprove-tagged at the moment and needs an update. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * wait/oppose for now its not much in international repercussions, moreover the appeals process is not yet exhausted. and considering the election result coming in now the central government is not gong to be so arrogant in its power.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

comment ALtblurbs are highly POV as the content described the events at greenpeace and not an "ongping" crackdown. Also this will look every follish when greenpeace is not banned.Lihaas (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * support - because of international implications. also altburb seems best.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - per Medeis. Furthermore the proposed blurb doesn't explain why this matters, while the altblurbs don't explain why there is a crackdown in the first place. I'm going to somewhat paradoxically propose a third altblurb while weakly opposing this. Banedon (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

US rejects Keystone XL Pipeline

 * Weak Oppose While this is a definitive end to the Keystone XL issue (I do not see anything that suggests Congress can override it) and it has been a central issue for the last year, it is also part of pre-election year politicking. There still remains a pipeline that runs from Canada to the US for the same purpose, and the articles suggest that Canada's gov't is disappointed but nowhere close to severing ties with the US. --M ASEM (t) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems like a notable issue that readers would be interested in. Also, not a disaster or sporting event, which is nice for a change. True, this is pre-election politicking, but politics are real life, and this decision affects real things.  Kiwi128 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable indeed, and game-changing news that signals a milestone in the shift away from fossil fuel to renewable energy. Story is international in scope and interest. Agree that this is a welcome change in blurb from sports and disasters. Let's put this one up ASAP. Jus  da  fax   02:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a regulatory policy decision regarding one pipeline which can always be overturned by congressional action or after the next election--it is not "definitive". We don't even post when countries legalize gay marriage anymore.  Why we should be posting not approving a pipeline is beyond me. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the legal world anything can be overturned at a later date. That doesn't mean that a given legal decision isn't important. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Jusdafax ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Long-expected move that only makes official Obama's unofficial policy of rejection. Nothing has changed. --Tocino 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: For related previous nominations, see:
 * In_the_news/Candidates/February_2015
 * In_the_news/Candidates/January_2012
 * -- Spencer T♦ C 19:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment why do we need five blurb alternatives? I've removed most of the detritus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * comment might want to add that the bcompany also redacted application to build it. Not to mntion the Canadian election produced a different circumstance (priceof oil too probably)Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - important and historically important as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose For once in my life, I agree entirely with Medeis. "Something that was never likely to happen, is unlikely to happen" is not news; governments decide not to go ahead with engineering megaprojects on cost or environmental grounds all the time. ‑ iridescent 17:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wull, gee, thanks. Next time my fishtank needs cleaning I will ping you.  The issue here is that a negative (no more Ebola, no pipeline) is WP:CRYSTAL regardless of our status as wealthy donor-editors. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose - If the Republicans are in control 14 months from now, it would be surprising if they did not reverse this decision. So this move is merely one step in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - my first impression of this was, "so what?". The nomination doesn't make it clear why this is of international interest, the blurb doesn't either, and even the linked news article contains the line "Obama downplayed the importance of the decision, saying the project had an "over-inflated role in our political discourse"". Banedon (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Its primary purpose locally is to make wealthy Republican donors wealthier. Internationally, it might have some impact on the price of oil. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

[Reposted to ongoing] Russia suspends all flights to Egypt

 * Add to ongoing instead Suggest using a "piped link" if the article title is confusing, but the article is constantly being updated, and developments remain top news stories. The target article is correct, even if the title is wrong.  We can fix that here via a piped link to a more appropriate descriptor for ongoing, so that's not an issue.  If the article title itself needs changing, that's a discussion to be had on the article talk page.  But the story clearly meets all of the checklist for Ongoing, and the Kogalymavia Flight 9268 itself is the correct one to link to because it is the one being updated with all of the information.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose both this and ongoing. This is one country's reaction on a claim, and only affects specific flights (unlike, say, the US stopping all flights after 9/11 or the rearrangements of flights done after the plane was shot down over Ukraine). If official reports do say it was actually shot down, that's a news item. ---M ASEM (t) 15:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in whatever form. This was imprudently pulled earlier while the story was still developing, yesterday British intelligence sources were quoted as saying that a bomb was more likely than not.  There is also the airlift of tens of thousands of tourists stranded in Sharm el Sheik being conducted by the British and American advisories to citizens not to travel to the area. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, neutral toward blurb. This event is still interesting and newsworthy, with significant updates happening daily. Mamyles (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing as per Mamyles. Once something clear emerges from this somewhat chaotic story, doing another blurb might make sense, but for now I think ongoing is best. Kiwi128 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb/oppose ongoing. The development is noteworthy enough for inclusion into the blurb that's already there. Calidum T&#124;C 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 32. Oppose per 's argument below.Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean ALT2, Spliff Joint Blunt? George Ho (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, updated. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose either method. First, listing the investigation as "ongoing" will not help matters, even when it attracts readers (immorally). At first I was uncertain whether most readers are interested, but I realize it won't matter or make any difference. Attracting suspense is already the job of the press. We shall not sink so low just to attract prejudice to all races... and fears. Second, the blurbs add nothing new to the development other than meaningless attraction. They are already posted as articles in Wikinews and other media, so why doing what's already on elsewhere news? Readers shall search for this event themselves if they want to read more. Meanwhile, I must removed "Ready". George Ho (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article describes an event that is ongoing, including the investigation. That is a fact, not an immoral statement or an attempt to "attract prejudice to all races". Our job here is solely to promote quality, newsworthy Wikipedia articles - it is not to censor what's in the news to prevent suspense or perceived prejudice. Additionally, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't have a Wikipedia article about the event, since the content is elsewhere. Frankly, your oppose statement makes little sense. Marking as ready again. Mamyles (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One guy changed his vote, so I'm re-removing "Ready". Second, censorship and deciding which to feature on the Main Page are not the same. Shall I explain more? Third, for my opposition, I'll rephrase: Claim of intent is possible. Without enough evidence to support the claim, this is just hypothesis by UK and US governments, including intelligence. The suspension of all Russian flights to Egypt, even when somewhat related to the flight crash investigations and unusual, tops neither more serious key points of this event... nor more serious bigger, more major (going broad) events. Overemphasizing the suspension of flights is media's folly (or Wikinews); meanwhile, let's not implement our folly and post this story. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Wikipedia does not make decisions based on what you (the singular you, George Ho) believes should and should not be covered by reliable sources.  The fact that you (the singular you, George Ho) do not want this topic to be receiving this sort of detailed and well-covered attention from major, reliable, and unassailable news sources is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  That you (the singular you) believe it is "folly" and "immoral" (to use your own words) for organizations like the BBC and CNN and Reuters and all the other to be devoting their journalistic resources towards covering this story is irrelevant.  It's not what you want news sources to cover or not cover that matters.  What matters is what sorts of news sources are giving what sorts of coverage to the story, not that you wish they weren't.  You cannot claim this is a story ignored by the best, and most respected journalistic entities in the English speaking world.  Because they are covering it.  That you think it folly and immoral that they are doing so is quite unimportant to how decisions are made around here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What about consensus? Stories have been posted based on usually consensus, though 2014 Sydney hostage crisis was featured on Main Page even with (technically) no consensus. Second, these referred 'highly reputable' sources are Western; what about Egyptian and Russian ones? Maybe being pro-Kremlin makes a source less reliable, so there must be a good source from Egypt and Russia. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, this is a significant new development of this story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per BabbaQ - significant new development. -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the story was the crash, and that one was posted already on the main page. A temporary suspension of flights (not just by the Russian government as the proposed blurb suggests) is a consequence. But that in itself is not unusual or notable, unless this suspension turns out to be more than just a temporary measure until security at Egyptian airports has been improved. 93.215.78.75 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A major country suspending all flights to another major country during peacetime is by itself remarkable news, and I don't recall any similar event in the recent years. -Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Peacetime or conflict, flight suspension based on or after a claim is itself wouldn't make this news that BIG. Also, who says that Egypt or Sinai Peninsula is peaceful? There is nothing peaceful about either area, even when Egyptian Crisis is over. --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not blow this out of proportion. Temporary flight suspensions are anything but unusual. All it takes is a bit of fog or a typhoon, or security issues, or unpaid airport bills. It happens all the time in civil aviation. We should reconsider if this lasts more than just a few days, but right now this is not a ITN worthy. Especially as the real event, the crash, has been posted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.78.75 (talk) 17:19, November 6, 2015‎
 * Sorry, I just tried all I can to appeal those lacking common sense. Anyway, what were previous historic suspensions posted before? George Ho (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How often does fog cause a plane to explode in mid-flight? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - While not openly admitting they suspect sabotage, the Russians are treating it as if they do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The evidence of a bomb sabotage bringing down the aircraft is stacking up. See this current event note. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Kiwi128: Shall I create a newer nomination or add more alts? George Ho (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @George Ho: I reckon another nomination might be sensible, as the focus of the nomination might be a bit different at this point. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what? I can't. The flight data recorder is not sufficient enough to support such claim. No confirmation yet; you can nominate, Kiwi. Can't you? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've renominated as ongoing. I don't think we would want to make definite statements on the main page at present due to the chaotic nature of the story. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support and propose Alt Blurb III as the story is continuing to develop and change. MurielMary (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can revote in a newer nomination; I added ALT III in the newer nomination in newer form. --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment quit all the alt-blurbs, some of which actually transform the tone of the item and render previous discussion and voting irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am collapsing this for space given the item has been posted to ongoing under the most recent nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Weak oppose - Article is in good enough condition, but I'm not sure if the man is a notable figure or made such a large impact on the Hollywood industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for being American and therefore unworthy of ITN attention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is being American unworthy of ITN attention? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An excellent question! -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably just in before TRM shows up.Correctron (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't know the guy, and have no opinion either way, but this is utterly ridiculous. Take your persecution complex elsewhere, and let the adults get on with things. Fgf10 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Top of his field, clearly. Designed and built the Batmobile, seen internationally. RD-worthy in my book. Jus  da  fax   05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per TDKR. I would like to support, but I also am unsure if he was 'very important' to his field or just popular. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support if "car customiser" is a field, there's little doubt this guy was up there. His article needs work, many unreferenced claims, WP:BLP problems.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality only, per TRM. Would support if the two filmography sections were referenced.  There's a few other fixes that could be made, but from my point of view, that's the only thing keeping this off for quality reasons.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Notable, but only to a fragmentary U.S. subculture. Sca (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. I know his work - and most people do (the Batmobile), but his death isn't front page news in the US. He's at the top of his field, but is his field ITN worthy? I admit, I'm on the fence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca - significant only in a tiny niche area. -Zanhe (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - as per Sca; doesn't seem to meet criteria 2 particularly well. Kiwi128 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


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

[Closed] RD: Soma Edirisinghe

 * Oppose - What award did she win that made her a notable figure? I can't see a reason why she's such a notable figure in the Sri Lankan film-making industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Soma_Edirisinghe is essentially a list--there should be a greated indication of significant things she did in her career.  Spencer T♦ C 03:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But has it left a significant mark? If this one passes then I'm not sure why Fred Thompson didn't pass. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment isn't in support or opposition--if there's nothing more to add to that section, then I would oppose.  Spencer T♦ C 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - read the first news source above, certainly appears to be a noteworthy figure in more than one field (film making as well as philanthropy), won awards in social work, three awards for "film of the year", PM and President at her funeral etc. Article could be developed with more of those details. MurielMary (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; at stated, article needs some improvement. She seems to be different than Thompson as he did not get awards/recognition for his fields, nor (I believe) do US government leaders intend to attend his funeral. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, or lack of. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TDKR Chicago 101 - not ITN-worthy level of contribution. -Zanhe (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I did some work on the article out of curiosity. Her film-making contribution is problematic as the 12 films she produced were all by her own company, and the awards she received for them were from a company that's part of her family business as well. There's limited obejctive information on her business successes. However, her contribution in philanthropy seems significant and independently verified. I continue to support on the basis of her charity work. MurielMary (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work and comment MurielMary. :) Kiwi128 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Oppose - Lack of sources. Article needs more sources for improvement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on merits and quality. PM for a month does not make a person "very important" to their field.  Sources needed for the article as well. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – PM for 17 days. Sca (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: He's to be buried without official state honors or government representation at the funeral. Sca (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - although significant as the last Communist PM, a 17-day tenure cannot be anything more than transitional. -Zanhe (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


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

[Closed] Myanmar elections

 * Oppose, best posted after elections. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SJB, I think you cross-posted with my edit asking that as a question! MurielMary (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The further back you can look, the further forward you are likely to see." Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Election results are ITNR, but I don't recall the commencement of any election being posted. The results are what is noteworthy, not the beginning. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurb is well composed but rather odd in its implication; it seems to imply elections in Burma are unexpected events. Could the issue be better elucidated? μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes blurb could be clearer! "first openly contested elections in 25 years" .... I'm really on the fence, in some places where elections aren't common or frequent then the commencement of voting is a big deal, but sure, can wait and post the results. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel

 * Somewhat oppose. It is a listing by one magazine. A big one indeed, but nevertheless. We usually don't post such stories. --Tone 12:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per notability. No local article on most powerful people. Gizmocorot (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do have an article, of sorts, titled Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a Forbes list not a general list, single source. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously. I guess I misunderstood Gizmocorot. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be a single source in the sense that this ranking is only done by one magazine, but it's also a ranking that's widely followed. Plenty of noteworthy things are single source, such as the Nobel Prizes (decided by only one committee), the FIFA world rankings, and so on. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't consider a Forbes listicle to be newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Forbes publishes a list almost every month (or week?). Merely a tactic to grab eyeballs. Not real news. -Zanhe (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an annual list, not monthly or weekly one. Plenty of noteworthy things are annual, such as the Nobel Prizes. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one of many Forbes lists. Category:Forbes lists shows some of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This list is widely followed and reported on. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A Forbes list is dubious as ITN criteria, in my view. Jus  da  fax   05:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Deutsche Bank

 * Comment - I note that the fine is much smaller than in the case of BNP Paribas. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Note that technically, it's the US branch of DB that's been fined (since for obvious reasons, the German bank is not affected by US sanctions), so the blurbs that specify "German" are inappropriate. Smurrayinchester 09:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sanctions scandal of DB lasted for nearly 9 years (1999 - 2006) while BNP lasted for 7 years (2002 - 2009) according to the sources. --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b><b style="color:#010"></b> ( talk ) 09:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - minus the German part as mentioned above. Misleading. ITN worthy news.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we pick a blurb and settle on it? Having 6 blurbs to choose from will make it impossible to come to a consensus. --WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurbs have been reduced to 2, the article is under expansion. <b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b><b style="color:#010"></b> ( talk ) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Comparatively minor fine, of marginal significance in the context of big bank fines. In the target article, sanctions violations are mentioned only halfway down. Sca (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The word "US" is used three times in this blurb. Why not balance the blurb out by mentioning India and Pakistan? ITN isn't all about America. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: $250M is a blink of an eye to corporations/banks of this size; we've seen much larger penalties placed on banks before for poor behavior in both international and national incidents. --M ASEM (t) 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem actually, a bank fined 250 million dollars is really a drop in the ocean. British banks are paying out 10s of billions of pounds for PPI issues, this, in comparison, is completely irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's peanuts – chicken feed. Sca (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In America, we actually consider peanuts a valuable snack moreso than bird feed. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Very small fine, though at least there is an uncommon admission of wrongdoing. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

RD Melissa Mathison

 * Weak oppose one Oscar nomination only and a weak article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Another sad loss for the entertainment industry, but she was not a major figure in her field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't meet ITN/DC2. Has not received significant awards in the field.  Spencer T♦ C 09:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - List of her works is not lengthy, but a high percentage are for quality, notable films and television projects. Well deserving of an RD listing. Death at 65 is unexpected and cuts a fine career short. Jus  da  fax   09:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing: European migrant crisis
Whether or not often reported, I see almost no major updates on European migrant crisis. Instead, this year's crisis becomes more of an everyday routine. Pull it? --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, substantive updates were added less than 3 days ago, and then the day before that and then two days before that. This is still a pretty well actively updated article, the current three day lull is not yet so long to say the story has gone stale, from a Wikipedia editing point of view.  Maybe if there's nothing after a week (which is the usual maximum time a story spends on ITN before rolling off the bottom, and also the time we usually start removing RD postings if they've been up that long) we can revisit this again.  3 days is long-ish for no new updates, but the article is still getting regularly updated, seeing regular activity over the time frame of the last week, so I'd say it isn't ready to be pulled yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I continue to see news reports on this. This is also called "crisis" for a reason: it has substantial implications for the countries impacted. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fuebaey, here's your chance. I'm reopening this. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - no substantial updates for a number of days. I suspect we'll be making this ongoing again in the future, but let's pull it for now. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal. As per my comment here, and also because it's becoming a coatrack article - we don't need to document every gruesome news story or every American Syrian refugee pledge. Fuebaey (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – A lull in editing does not mean a lull in the event, still a major crisis with massive repercussions across the majority of the European continent. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but no updates suggests that the content of the article is not newsworthy going to help someone trying to learn about current events. If someone updates the article substantially, I reckon we would want to keep this as ongoing. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Shall we move this proposal to the newest date section? George Ho (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Romanian Prime Minister resignation

 * Support alt blurb. Nightclub fire and resignation ITN material. Gizmocorot (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – clear change of pace from the previous nomination of the nightclub fire with major implications now present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Copy edit tag needs to be resolved before this can be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. Yes, there's a tag, but it's yellow-level, which can be fixed when the article gets more attention. The overall article is very detailed. --Tone 13:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the Prime Minister's article has not been updated yet. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like, at the very least, the lead has been updated to reflect current events. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did that (and the infobox) after posting here. It really should have been done before it was on the main page though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The resigned PM article has improved... Rather, the "Resignation" section expanded into just one paragraph. As said, the link is ready to be bolded. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Request: Could we put around Victor Pontas name as well as it is him the situation is about. To highlight that,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you clarify your request and post it at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a request to bold both linked items, as they're both the "main" story in this instance. IMO that's a reasonable suggestion. ‑ iridescent 22:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Irisdescent for clarifying. And for implementing it. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Juba plane crash

 * Support subject to improvement. Death toll would include many ground casualties. Article needs expansion atm. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, suggest blurb mention most of the causalities were on the ground which makes it even moreso a big story. --M ASEM (t) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Very close to postable form. Brandmeistertalk  16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks currently small but ready to go. George Ho (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update request - title of the article is now 2015 Juba An-12 crash. Kiwi128 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] Ongoing: Kogalymavia Flight 9268
Kogalymavia Flight 9268 is currently featured on the main page as "Ongoing" without consensus. The airplane crash may be tragic, but making the ongoing investigation part of ITN without knowing whether most readers are interested makes ITN look bad compared to mainstream press. Is featuring it well deserved, or shall we remove it? George Ho (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved it to ongoing per the standing ITN instructions for administrators: "An accepted blurb may be transferred to the Ongoing section if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s)". That's still happening (in fact, rather more than incremental updates are appearing in news agencies e.g. this BBC story from 7 hours ago about flight recorders, so I believe my decision was correct. BencherliteTalk 00:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove, or at least, rename. The flight is over, the plane is downed, the passengers are dead. The investigation is ongoing, but not the flight. I'll also say that I feel there are items far more worthy of ongoing status, such as the Syrian civil war or the Yemeni civil war. Way more people die in those conflicts than in this flight. I do not see how this flight can be ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is how this type of article is typically named. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - The flight downing is a high-profile international incident. It is possibly related to the Russian intervention in the Middle East.  The story is in active development.  Lastly, I think that many readers would be interested in the story. Kiwi128 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Iff it shown that the plane went down due to something hitting it from the area (whether it was ISIS or something else), then that would make for an Ongoing story due to the strength of being an international incident, similar to the plane that was shot down in Ukraine. But right now, the reports all seem to point to a major engine failure. --M ASEM  (t) 04:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the news tonight they said that a satellite detected two flashes: one when it exploded, and another when it crashed. No indication of a missile launch. That doesn't rule out a bomb, of course. But it seems likely that it will be a number of days before anything new is officially known. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I support taking it down, with a possible repost if something surprising is discovered. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove - We can put it back at need, but time to pull for now, per nom. Jus  da  fax   07:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove until something new is reported. And don't call me Shirley.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled from ongoing. As mentioned, there was no discussion to place it within ongoing in the first place (with respect to Bencherlite's initial, good faith decision to place it there) and there's consensus here to remove it already. Leaving discussion open for further comments from other users to determine if restoring it is warranted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough with removal. But is there a view that items cannot be moved from blurb to ongoing without there being a discussion at ITNC, and if so should we discuss removing that sentence from the administrator instructions? BencherliteTalk 10:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the instruction should be amended. Maybe they should state that items should be referred back to ITN/C if it is felt that they should be moved to "ongoing". Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the only thing that might be clear is that the OP was unaware that an admin could move an item that was still considered "live" to ongoing without seeking a consensus. Perhaps  could comment on his original post.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead if no one objects; I don't mind changing the rules. We shall propose whatever looks like ongoing and interesting to readers. George Ho (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CREEP, WP:BURO, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, etc. etc. The objections above are not "The item is not being updated regularly and there is no coverage in the news."  The objections seem to amount to "I didn't get to vote on this" or "This isn't in the rules".  No one has yet demonstrated that the move to ongoing was counter to the objectives of ITN or the ongoing section.  When Wikipedia becomes more about the process than the results, it isn't working right.  This should not have been pulled; Bencherlite's rationale in green above is spot on, and has not been shown to be incorrect by any evidence presented by anyone.  Where rules exist, they exist to promote the smooth operation of the organization.  If the organization does something correctly without the rules, the rule didn't need to be followed in that case.  The rules do not exist just to be followed for their own sake.  That doesn't mean we intentionally go against the rules, or ignore them.  But Bencherlite's posting of this item on ongoing neither was against the purpose of ITN, nor did it create a problem for the main page readers.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignoring all rules doesn't apply; adding it without consensus doesn't improve Wikipedia. The majority already agreed to pull it out of "Ongoing" ticker. As for the event, investigation would, as said, take a long time (days or weeks). Yes, Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a bureaucracy. However, people operate Wikipedia and should stick together in Wikipedia, not throw each other's throats meaninglessly. Enough about Wikipedia generally, the majority also demonstrated that... well, let's rather pull it out and make readers search for the airplane crash page themselves. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on what question we're asking here "Should we have a discussion on substantive points, and then decide to pull it if we come to an agreement". Sure.  However, that's a different question than "Did Bencherlite do anything wrong in moving it to ongoing, and did it need to be pulled solely because it wasn't discussed".  No, we shouldn't.  Decide which issue needs addressing, so we can be sure that we're disagreeing on the same points.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Return it to ongoing: The article has received substantive updates one, two, three, four times in the past 24 hours and has received more than 500 total edits in less than 3 days.  The article is certainly still being updated more or less continuously with information which is itself coming just as fast from reliable news sources.  This is exactly the sort of story Ongoing is designed for.  If everyone wants to have a discussion on this, and feels the need to force a vote on the evidence that this deserves to be in Ongoing, there is your evidence that it belongs.  What is the evidence that it doesn't belong?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's getting news but not "ground breaking" news; there appear to be several theories all being advanced at the same time, with some theories that involve malicious intent that would be ground breaking news if proven true. However, it's not yet proven to that yet. Like nearly all other commercial airplane disasters there is a long tail of news as the investigation into causes continues, but that's not the cut we need for ITN (we're not just a news ticker). If the reason for the plane's crash does turn out to be from an external attack, validated by appropriate sources, I can pretty much guarantee that would make for a brand new ITN news item here; if it was just an unfortunate engine failure, not so much. --M ASEM  (t) 01:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain removed - As nominator, I don't like featuring "Ongoing" investigations on this tragic event to our or their advantage similar to mainstream press. We don't want to attract readers immorally; otherwise, we would be no better than a sleazy editor. Of course, that's news for ya! In the meantime, we have already featured this as a blurb, so let's not bother featuring it as just the name again as "Ongoing" until something major comes up. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Return to Ongoing a possible bomb on board, up to 15,000 British tourists to be "evacuated" while security is examined at the airport, this is all over the news, and on top of all of that, we have space at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am collapsing this for space given the item has been posted to ongoing under the most recent nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tom Graveney
*Support on notability but oppose on article quality. An actual cricketing legend, but an actual article which lacks in pretty much every department. We need to bulk out the article to ensure there are no foul cries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on article improvements  Per TRM. Our article is woefully weak given what the news reports are saying about his death. --M ASEM (t) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated version is well up to spec for posting now. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when updated, notability clearly established. --109.149.137.152 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not notable outside cricketing countries. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. If you're a top dog in your field, it doesn't matter whether there are places where few are interested in that field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently on ITN/C, it does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; seems to meet the criteria as "very important" to cricket(which is wildly popular in many places, including India, the second most populous nation). 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Article has now been rewritten, so I'd invite, , , and  to take another look. BencherliteTalk 13:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support really nice improvement, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly notable. Article looks much better now. 59.93.230.168 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, marking as ready. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Great work on it. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ahmed Chalabi

 * Support - A important political figure, with a well-developed article. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD for a long, storied and impactful career.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Article still needs to be brought up to date - lots of present tense still. BencherliteTalk 11:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when ready. One of the architects of Iraq invasion of 2003. Gizmocorot (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, though I'm disappointed that the article doesn't have more detail on his career pre-2003. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major figure in the ongoing situation in the Middle East. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, does not meet RD requirements as top of any field, even 'field' of "liars who started a war". Abductive  (reasoning) 17:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said the other day, RD criteria doesn't say "top" of the field is a criteria. It says "very important", and he was very important as an architect of a war fought on false pretenses. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article needs an update; it does not discuss his death very much. George Ho (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - a major figure in the Iraq War. -Zanhe (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - oh yes, the "George Washington of Iraq". How's that working out? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] White House welcome for US women's soccer team

 * Oppose – Failing to see the notability here (opted to keep the nomination open in case it's just my own ignorance of the subject). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted the tournament in Ongoing and the US victory at In the news/Candidates/July 2015. A White House welcome four months later? No way. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article, opening paragraph, states numerous reasons why the team is notable (winning three World Cups for example). Also the President has given a ceremony honoring their achievement, which I guess means that the White House considers the team notable. MurielMary (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN has featured motorsports, men's baseball and men's rugby over the last few days. Why not feature some women's sports? MurielMary (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose For several reasons:
 * If you were following the WWC, we posted their win back in July. This is a non-event/PR exercise.
 * This occurred on the 27 October and is therefore stale (too old). We're, unfortunately, on a fast news cycle at the moment.
 * A single sentence update is inadequate for ITN, which usually requires at least a paragraph update for developed articles.
 * But thanks for nominating this nonetheless. Fuebaey (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is routine for any US president, as they typically honor American champions, usually some months after the fact. He honored the Duke basketball team recently also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:SNOW and propose speedy closure. The welcoming of sport teams for their accomplishments by the authorities of the country they represent is nothing but a routine act with no significance at all. There are several hundreds international sport competitions every year and at least that much sport teams or athletes are welcomed. If we are going to post each of them, nobody knows where the end would be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - winning the event itself is ITN-worthy (and posted, too) but being welcomed / congratulated / etc is not. Banedon (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Michelle Payne
Comment 's vote on the Melbourne Cup nomination below was for a blurb with Payne as the target link. MurielMary (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment see below, this is unnecessary, there's already plenty of support for a blurb which includes Payne linked, just not as the target (i.e. in bold). Requiring both articles to be up to scratch, as I have already said, will only delay this nomination.  I understand you're trying to promote the female aspect here, but it's already been agreed to include it in the blurb, just not in bold.  This multiple/parallel nomination will doubtless delay the posting and reduce the exposure the female jockey deserves.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM, I made this new nomination because you recommended it below, quote from your post "We ought to have two nominations perhaps, one where we are concerned with the ITNR (the Melbourne Cup) and one where we are concerned with the female jockey". I am trying to follow the rules and suggestions here, which, TBH, aren't always that clear to a newbie! MurielMary (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's because you're bucking the trend and forcing the pace on female exposure, when ITNR is all about the items we've traditionally posted. We will post the Melbourne Cup as long as it is up to scratch and it will be the bold article.  We could (and probably will) also include the jockey in the blurb.  But for the link to her to article to be bold, it needs to be of sufficient quality.  I guess, in summary, we'll go with posting the MC with a blurb including a non-bolded female jockey, then you and others can work on the jockey bio to make it fit for purpose for the main page, then request it be bolded too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Melbourne Cup

 *  Support and propose alternative blurb 1 - Kiwi128 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose current article is stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly support with alternative blurb 1 Also, re The Rambling Man's comment, it is permitted for ITN items to link to stubs. It may be a way of getting editors to update/expand them. MurielMary (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it isn't permitted to use a stub for a target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the record that this is ITNR, so if it does get expanded it will be posted. At the moment though, I agree with TRM's assessment of the article – a fair bit of work will be required to get it ready for posting. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rambling Man, I just found that criteria on another page. So is it the Prince of Penzance article being a stub which is a problem? Because the Michelle Payne article is not a stub as far as I can see. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We mostly concern ourselves with the quality of the target link, that's the bold one. Curiously we seldom pay much attention to the other linked items in the blurb.  We need to expand the Melbourne Cup article to a point where it's considered of sufficient quality for the main page, not just a couple of lines of prose and a table of results.  P.S. I'd go for alt blurb 1 as well, once the target article is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Actually I would think that the target link ought to be Michelle Payne as she is the part of the story that's all over the news today, with her press conference about being a woman in racing etc etc. If her page is the target link (as in Alt Blurb II) then do the other linked items (the horse and the cup) have to be updated further?? MurielMary (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb 2 - That is, with the target link being Michelle Payne. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the Melbourne Cup is WP:ITNR which means that, by default, it will be the target article. There's no reason we couldn't feature two targets, in which case we would need to ensure the quality of both are up to scratch, not just the ITNR target.  Which is good for the encyclopedia, but bad for getting this expediently onto the main page.  You pays your money ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe we're about to put yet another horse racing article on the ITN ticker. 128.227.38.126 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you dislike any specific item or category of items that are on the ITNR list, please propose the removal of whatever it is you don't like. Also understand that ITN is not a "ticker" or source of news, but a way to feature articles that have been improved. If you want to see other items posted, please put the time into improving the article of whatever it is you want to see posted. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it's less about the race and more about a first for a woman in this sport. MurielMary (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not, it's about the Melbourne Cup which is listed at ITN every year as long as the quality of the article is sufficient. It could be won by a woman, a dog, a horse, an alien, it'd still get listed as long as the article quality was sufficient.  If you change the target article, you nullify the votes that go before.  Please think twice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * TRM, the current link in the blurb goes to the page for the 2015 Melbourne Cup, which is a brief article, yes. Can the target instead be the generic page for the Melbourne Cup, which is a much more developed page? If so, this would expedite getting this item onto the main page. The article on Michelle Payne has been substantially updated in the last 24 hours and it seems a shame not to be able to highlight this asap. MurielMary (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, the ITNR target is the Melbourne Cup. If you want the Payne article to be highlighted then ideally both articles need to be fixed up.  I'm not voting here, other than to say that when I looked, the 2015 Melbourne Cup article was weak.  The Payne article is pretty crap too, but could probably just about get away with being a target article.  I think we have a strange scenario here where the ITNR target may be superseded by a subsidiary article.   We ought to have two nominations perhaps, one where we are concerned with the ITNR (the Melbourne Cup) and one where we are concerned with the female jockey.  Right now, votes above relate to the ITNR, not the jockey target.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done, I have reverted the nomination back to the 2015 MC and made a new nomination for Payne. MurielMary (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the abundance of drive-by commentators and dearth of editors here at ITN, the last thing we need is to split !votes. Why not add a paragraph race summary so we can post both? I'd hate to think we'd rather highlight her gender rather than detail her accomplishment. Fuebaey (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry not sure what you mean by a paragraph race summary, and also not sure why it's a problem to highlight her gender as her accomplishment has two parts, one the win and second the first female to do so. It shouldn't be a problem to mention a first in a field?? MurielMary (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For recurring sporting events, an update usually consists of a paragraph or two covering the event itself. For a horse race, this usually involves describing how the race unfolded (who led out of the gate/field, major falls/overtakes, was it a close finish?). I don't have a problem with the blurb, just that it seems like we're itching to get this posted because of her gender instead of adding more information about her win. Melbourne Cup is well-developed but doesn't have a sufficient update about the 2015 race. Adding a race summary in 2015 Melbourne Cup would get this posted more quickly. Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Yes there is an "itch" to get it posted because of her gender. There's been an ongoing discussion about the lack of exposure of women and women's achievements/issues on the main page and this seems like an ideal opportunity to "do something" about this. MurielMary (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Prefer blurb 2; Both articles updated adequately, Melbourne Cup is ITN/R, I think. Good week for horse racing! Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, let's keep it to ITNR and go with blurb 2 which most are supporting. We don't need to overplay our hand here, the female aspect should and will get prominence, we don't need to mandate that the article is up to snuff by attempting to make it a second bold link.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ok, so it's weak and needs a proper prose race summary, but it's a significant sporting event to see a woman riding to victory, thus posted and we'll cope with the fallout (well, I will). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post with Payne as the bold link, as per your comment (and a couple of others) that that was the favoured blurb and also as the 2015 race article has an orange tag, so I've swapped the bolding. If the race article is improved it can be bolded but I agree there's no point in waiting to get something up. BencherliteTalk 21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still refute that the bold link should be the jockey, her article is mediocre while the ITNR is the Melbourne Cup, I've adjust accordingly right now, perhaps the next hour or two will provide some levelling off. Either way I'm not coming back to this particular nomination, attempting to appease the equality lobby here seems to have resulted in chaos.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm bowing out too. Incidentally, the ITNR element doesn't mean that only the race can be bolded - see our treatment of Nobel Prizes, which are ITNR, but where we generally link the recipients or their field of activity rather than the prizes themselves: see Main Page history/2015 October 9 / Main Page history/2013 October 10. BencherliteTalk 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I say keep the race article bolded and don't bold the jockey. That it's a female jockey is nice, but the story that is ITN/R is the race. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * REWORD POSTED VERSION: "In horse racing, Michelle Payne becomes the first female winner of woman jockey to win the Melbourne Cup, riding Prince of Penzance to victory."  She is not the first "female" winner, she is the first woman jockey to win - the female horse Makybe Diva won the race three times and the woman trainer Gai Waterhouse won in 2013. Concise is nice, but precision is better Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It already uses the word "jockey", a change made within a minute of the blurb being posted precisely for this reason. BencherliteTalk 22:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can somebody provide a link for previous consensus for the ITNR? Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here (at the bottom) under May 1, Kentucky Derby. ITN/R was relatively new at the time. Both the Grand National and the Melbourne Cup were added. Fuebaey (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyclone Chapala

 * Tentative wait - The impact on human life is expected but not yet known. While being a meterological oddity - if that's all that happens, that's a great DYK. But if this does a lot of damage, then it will be a good ITN. Give it about 24 hrs. --M ASEM (t) 02:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now Support as it did make a significant negative impact on landfall. --M ASEM (t) 15:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative wait - It is uncertain if it will make landfall over Yemen as a very severe cyclonic storm or a Category 1 equivalent tropical cyclone, as Chapala is still offshore now. If the intensity is below hurricane-force during landfall, the sentence should be changed to ‘the strongest’. -- Meow  03:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative wait - Although the storm has moved inland, there are no reports about the storm's damage other than a few eyewitness accounts, and media reports are very difficult to acquire given the looming civil war. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Though it will be difficult to acquire damage figures, the storm itself is quite significant both in damage and history.Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. If this is indeed the first ever hurricane to travel inland in Yemen (or the Arabian peninsula generally), then I think that is enough.  It is genuinely in the news, it is encyclopedic and the first reports of material impact are trickling in.  However, it seems most others want a larger material impact and/or loss of life to consider this ITN-worthy.  I disagree, but if that's the case then I suggest nominator close and re-nominate when appropriate.  Otherwise, this will get buried under other nominations, and edits and new altblurbs will clutter the nom.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb or ongoing - I'm convinced by the IP that, as usual cyclones are, the cyclone is more than just a typical cyclone. This may either end or worsen the civil war, but its arrival is huge. Even when three is a tiny number, this ain't murder, mass shooting, or battle. It could be either mother nature... or a man-made weather-controlling machine, but I shall not foresee. George Ho (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think right now, Meow and Rishabh ? George Ho (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops; I must have incorrectly pinged. Pinging Rishabh again. --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per IP above. The notability of an event does not decrease if it doesn't kill anyone. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Andrzej Ciechanowiecki

 * Comment - Some of the language speaks to something you'd find on a CV or similar, however, I'm not getting hits on obvious phrasing. Regardless this needs major sourcing (the polish WP article is in as bad shape so difficult to pull from there). --M ASEM  (t) 04:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. That lead sentence is longer than some articles. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Wikipedia reaches 5 million articles
Oppose completely unnecessary self-promotion of dubious newsworthiness (as the less-than-stellar sources show). Anyone reading WP's main page at present has the statistic shoved down their throat anyway, so an ITN entry would add nothing. BencherliteTalk 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. ITN isn't the Wikipedia mutual admiration club; anyone who actually cares about this is already aware. ‑ iridescent 01:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose navel gazing. The banner on the logo is plenty recognition. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 World Series

 * Support - Obviously. The biggest baseball event each year. Article looks pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Summary is now fully referenced. Article is in fine shape. This is breaking news. Let's post it earlier rather than later, for once. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We kept this one up in tip-top shape so that we don't have to waste time. Three supports, ITN/R, marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - but much of the article needs to be cast into the past tense. Can we do that quickly? Done. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good job by everyone who worked on the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - It's already up, but I wanted to add my support to the work done on this piece. Good job. South Nashua (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support after posting - good article. Good job.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull posting and delete article. All mention of this series' result should be obliterated from Wikipedia, if not the entire Internet. (If you're unsure why, please note my username.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * totally agree...stupid useless Astros and Rangers.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about a new nickname for the Mets' illustrious second baseman: "Daniel Boot". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Azeri general election, November 2015

 * Oppose Three tiny sentences. 322 B. Some recent election noms haven't been updated sufficiently to post, so ping me if this one turns out differently. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support When/If Updated - national elections should be up, but there isn't enough info on this one yet. South Nashua (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when update - If this was a good article it should of course be posted. As it stands however, it's barely a stub. Fgf10 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose sub-stub quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per article quality. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Fred Thompson

 * Weak oppose. I'm having difficulty seeing how he meets the criteria.  Being well known does not equate with importance in a field, such as acting.  Running for President isn't 'very important' on its own, and as a Senator he didn't really do anything remarkable(AFAIK).  331dot (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Not a major figure in the GOP but a notable one. Big figure in Watergate and former senator. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: United States Senator, presidential candidate alone are pretty significant. To combine this with being a film/TV actor is not real common, the last person to pull that off was Ronald Reagan, and Reagan didn't try to do both at once the way Thompson did. (Well, there's also Al Franken, but sort of proves my point) All reports were that he was also a fairly decent human being, imperfect, as are we all, but deserving of main page recognition.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to make of this nom. Beyond R.I.P., of course. They drafted him into the 2012 presidential race, so it's surprising he didn't survive the next presidential term (oops it was 2008). He's dabbled in different fields, which makes him more important than if he was only in one, but I don't know if we should post it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either. As an actor, no. As a politician, no. Add the two together, maybe. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. I keep thinking "jack of all trades, master of none". He's unique compared to your typical actor and your typical politician, but does that meet muster? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Not an extraordinary senator; and also-rans shouldn't be posted on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Held a number of important posts, played an important part in Watergate and appeared on a top rating TV program. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD. I see a handful of a couple handful of unsourced paragraphs but it is far from a problem for ITN (95% is ready to go). --M ASEM (t) 01:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, weak in all fields. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable as both a politician and actor. Maybe we need to ask the US Congress to create more fanciful titles to make more people support RD noms here. Calidum T&#124;C 01:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As a HUGE fan of L&O Prime, I am sorry to hear that Thompson has passed, but he doesn't reach the RD criteria in either of his career fields. Those who support because he was a US Senator, remember there are A LOT of those they can't all be significant enough to post; ditto regarding his presidential bid. As an actor his career doesn't reach the RD criteria either. When the two careers are combined, that doesn't raise either to the RD, but would make a great DYK entry. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * strong oppose fail to see how hes top of his career in anything, be it screen or politics. "notable" as bo th is inadequate because by virtue of having a WP page theyre notable...we cant list every seneator or failed candidate. (nowhere near winning either).Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say he has to be "top of his career in anything". DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Thanks for helping me make up my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If youre minds made up, how was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"...considering theres no shortage of senators who LED committees or "actors" who won some recognition?Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support He was regarded as important enough to draft into the 2008 Presidential race by conservatives to run against Obama. He fizzled, but he's the guy they turned to. Important enough in both politics and acting to merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing from full support to weak support. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Excelled in two fields that are only vaguely related to each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable in multiple fields, death received very wide coverage. RD was made for precisely this.  "He didn't get elected president" seems like a dubious reason not to post this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 13:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A key figure in the Watergate investigation, a former presidential candidate and a highly popular actor. Way more well-known than Schabowski who is currently posted to RD. Nsk92 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose apart from maybe his role in Watergate, I'm not seeing RD notability in either career. Fgf10 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support notable as lawyer in Watergate and other cases, well-known actor, senator who replaced Al Gore, as well as 2008 presidential candidate; long-standing preference to post people notable in several fields; article is in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose politician and popular actor, not RD level. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per Montanabw. shoy (reactions) 18:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready--this is updated, broaldy supported, and there are no objections on article quality. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - The test is "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". He does not appear to have a significant reputation or to have received significant recognition for his career as an actor, according to the standards that ITNC has traditionally required of actors.  His role in Watergate is too small a field to count for much (and, important though Watergate was, not everyone involved in some way can qualify for RD thereby). Which leaves his political career, which is said in effect to be more than the average senator's (and the average senator would not get onto RD) based on a fairly damp squib run for president. And yet... he was one of the top dozen UK and international stories on my BBC news app this morning, which makes me wonder whether I'm under-appreciating his importance.  Hmmm... BencherliteTalk 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Without trying to pester, I would suggest you consider the fact that Thompson's legal career, senate career, presidential run, and acting career (many major movies over three decades, as well as his role on Law & Order, which I did not watch,) would each alone have merited him an article--indeed his article is over 72k long, averages over 400 hits a day long-term, and has 123 references as of last count.  I would probably be a weak oppose or not vote based on either just his political or just his acting career.  But the two of them together and the obvious interest and coverage make this a rather clear "support" for me. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A question- are we creating a new criteria here, perhaps 'important in multiple fields'? I don't necessarily object to that, but if we are, we should write it down when we are done, because I don't think(and even some supporters concede) he meets the criteria for each individual field he worked in. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, someone above notes "jack of all trades" (which in this case was two), "master of none". I see nothing remarkable about his career as a politician and I see no indication of any awards or that he was anywhere close to top of the field of acting.  Just because he did a couple of reasonably interesting things, it's hardly RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given how subjective (by necessity) the guidelines already are, suggesting that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts doesn't seem especially radical to me. And frankly, in both politics and acting he makes a not implausible case for sufficient notability; he was, after all, successful enough as a senator that his name is known nationwide (as others have mentioned, there are many senators - not all have household recognition) and was a presidential nominee, and his acting resume includes heavy hitters like Hunt for Red October, Days of Thunder, Cape Fear, and Law and Order.  If you think he'd make the cut if his accomplishments were assessed as a whole but not individually, then I respectfully submit that the rules should be ignored in favor of good sense, as is our tradition. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he makes the cut individually or combined. He's a popular actor and used to be a politician (would Glenda Jackson be RD material?  I don't imagine so for a second because she wasn't in a bunch of endless American television series) but nothing more.  No awards, nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that Glenda Jackson's two Best Actress Oscars would secure her a place on RD. Neljack (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, she is an example of someone who 'did excel in her fields. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Medeis, I've already said my oppose is weak; your further comments don't address the existing RD criteria (though, to be fair, you're not the only one) or make me change my mind. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - Looking at the section on Watergate, I see a lot of quotes included, but they add very little meaning to his role as part of the Watergate investigations. He wrote the book about his role, but that's all there is to it. However, he helped a woman win her wrongful termination case and bring some governor down, but the impact of it is too limited. Throughout his acting career, significant or not, his roles are supporting types. He had been never a leading man in entertainment. Being a Senator out of one hundred US Senators is one thing, but he did not lead most of very significant and important events. Usually, he was just a voter or a member of anything. He withdrew the presidential race before the primaries. With one exception, as said before, he was a member or part of a committee. The article emphasizes his role a lot, but information that I read wouldn't make him significant enough to be honorably mentioned. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 22:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I accept that it is legitimate to consider together his achievements in different fields, but even so I don't see how he qualifies. He wasn't a particularly influential senator or a particularly acclaimed actor. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is still ready, with 4 to 3 support in favor (ignoring votes that mention his being American) after 36 hour's vetting. Thompson was important enough in the senate that he was chosen to give the Republican rebuttal to President Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address.  His article has had over 172,000 hits since his death. In Paris he is being covered as the famed actor who happened to be a US senator, in Berlin he's the presidential candidate who was also a movie star (no insult, but a better one than Reagan) and once again we have opponents who argue that the "American bias is super-strong, it has be combatted fiercely to maintain this as English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps it would serve you and your countrymen better to create an American Wikipedia" removing the ready tag.  I somehow doubt that posting the "unwitting" subject of mockery and admitted murderer Günter Schabowski whose 12-source article got 12,000 hits after posting in his stead is the way to show off Wikipedia to its best light. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you're counting, but it's 11-10 against, no consensus. Please take your misplaced persecution complex somewhere else. Fgf10 (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote tally. It's about the quality of arguments that makes no consensus here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reminder This is an encyclopedia, not the front page of a tabloid newspaper. Kim Kardashian's article has been viewed a quarter of a million times this past month and she hasn't even died.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - As other Supports have noted, Thompson was notable for multiple achievements. Opposers fail to convince me; I contend he is a fine RD candidate. I call for posting the blurb to RD. NOTE: My post was an edit conflict. The close was way too early. Jus  da  fax   09:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He wasn't British. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He wasn't a college basketball coach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reopening comment: I'm undoing Tone's closure as it's not yet stale. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this should have been left closed, as it seems unlikely to gain a clear consensus, and further discussion does not seem like it will change any minds. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I voted to !support posting it. I think it's clear there isn't consensus to post and that's fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think Tone ever said it was "stale", please check the history.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: I didn't say Tone marked it as 'stale'. In fact, I'm not marking it as stale... yet. It is an RD nomination; I'll mark it as "stale" if there's no room for this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Just check the article views - over 150K in a single day, which utterly dwarfs all the current RD entries put together. People are reading this article in great numbers because the subject is in the news.  Nobody cares what the self-appointed gatekeepers here think. Andrew D. (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we went by article views, we would post Kim Kardashian just about every day. I am a "gatekeeper" of nothing; things are posted based on consensus.  If you dislike the consensus, please continue to participate(preferably without attacking those who put in time here) 331dot (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If is the Gatekeeper, then who is the "keymaster"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kim Kardashian isn't dead, is she? And there isn't a consensus here, is there?  In the meantime, what's actually happening is that the readership is reading the article in question whether you like or not.  ITN should reflect what's actually happening rather than what people would like to happen.  To try to impose your personal preferences is contrary to core policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone here evaluates RD (and all) nominations based on their personal preferences as to how they feel each one meets the deaths criteria. I don't see how people can do otherwise.  Here, some people feel that he does not meet the criteria, and some people feel he does, both for varying reasons.  No one is trying to censor anything; this is an evaluation. As I indicated, if you don't like what is chosen, please keep participating. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Looking at other recent deaths, I don't see why this one was not posted. Heck this guy even has a page... FOR HIS POLITICAL VIEWS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson If some cricket player with a few paragraphs ends up getting posted but this guy doesn't, that's nonsense.75.73.150.255 (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevance to ITN being? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, and as an ITN/C regular, I'm not surprised it hasn't been posted and I have a very good idea as to why it hasn't been despite clearly meeting the relevant criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because a mediocre actor/politician doesn't reach ITN/RD standards one would hope. Alternatively there's some kind of subversive plot against mediocre RD nominations, or worse, something that reminds us that we shouldn't just be posting average US politician/actors?  Hmm, I wonder.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Count me as an American who doesn't think this merits posting. He was an average actor and and average Senator; nowhere near "very important" to even his fields individually or combined(which isn't a criteria anyway). 331dot (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest close again It's been two days with no new posts on this topic. There is still no consensus to post. I suggest that we close again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No need. Let the bot archive it, implying closure. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] NYC Marathon

 * Wow that's an insult to stubs. What's that template that was created to be put on top of pages like this that are ITN candidates? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. With only one sentence and a list of winners (as of writing), the article is definitely not ready for front page inclusion. I'd support pending article improvements, but as of now, no.  Prhdbt  [talk]  01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article does not have any substantial content yet. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose self-evidently inappropriate for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment ...and now it has a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's long enough (no longer than a stub) and updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weakest possible support The recently added race summary seems to meet bare minimums of expected prose, and I'd not like to encourage us to stop there as "good enough". This support is so weak, I'd consider it an a mistake to assume it over ruled any opposes based on article quality.  Surely, we can do better.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree the overall quality of the article isn't great, not being an American marathon follower and all, but the update is pretty much your standard ITN fare. I can see two options: I could import the background from New York City Marathon and we post (mind you, we put this up in 2013), or I could merge this into the main article and we can post that (like in 2011). Fuebaey (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, went for the former. Should be decent now. Fuebaey (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh. Good enough.  Thanks for all the work you've done!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted, good work, in particular from . The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Turkish general election, November 2015

 * Support alternative blurb 2 - Also, I've updated the article's intro. Kiwi128 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * General elections are ITNR, so we only need an adequate update and a blurb agreed to. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One paragraph at the "Results" section needs sources. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see that "Results" section highly improved, but it still needs one more source. I'm unsure about one paragraph at the top of the "Background" section. It is uncited, but I don't think it affects the nomination, does it? --George Ho (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * altblurb 2 wen updated.Lihaas (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Province-by-province winnings imported - so, I think the article is probably ready to be posted. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Waiting for the full results to be imported into the results table will take around 11-12 days (the electoral council allows a 10-day period for parties to contest results), so I advise we post this without waiting for these results to come through. Nub Cake (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - when everything is ready. National elections should be up there by default. South Nashua (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Günter Schabowski

 * I think he could arguably meet DC1 (significant impact on a country) but references are needed, as stated. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when fully referenced. Certainly meets the significant impact on a country criterion - his "simple cockup" effectively ended the existence of East Germany and you don't get much more significant than that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – A briefly pivotal figure in Cold War history. Famous for saying on his own that the Wall would open "sofort, unverzüglich" ("immediately, without delay") – touching off a stampede of East Berliners to the Wall. East Germany was finished. Sca (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A little surprised by the support. Will try to reference. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-evaluate! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I might have missed something but it seems much improved. I support this as meeting DC1. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * RD-worthy, but not a blurb. The Fall of the Wall was such a political earthquake that his significance was wider than domestic. (I still remember Tom Brokaw announcing it on Nov. 9, 1989.) Sca (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has proposed a blurb. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks to be in good shape now (based on comments from above). --M ASEM (t) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Important figure in modern European history, even if by accident. Also an interesting character during the 1990s. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)