Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 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] 2015 Breeders' Cup

 * Oppose Sorry, failing to see the significance. American Pharoah has not just been on ITN - it has been here three times in the past six months. While the Triple Crown was indeed a feat, I'm not getting the same sense here - either from the news sources or the article. Even if there were consensus to post, the article fails to provide an adequate update via a main race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To put this in perspective, he broke the Keeneland track record today by more than five seconds. The Breeders' Cup is run against older horses. The "Grand Slam" is legacy-defining, an achievement without precedent. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support An extremely exceptional horse and first-time achievement. Story should not be penalized from ITN just because it isn't about a train wreck, a plane crash or someone blowing little old ladies up in a market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.21.139 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DYK material – "firsts" are seldom considered for ITN in regards to sports and are better suited at DYK. The event itself is not included on WP:ITN/R but I will submit I know next to nothing about horse racing. If notability of the event itself is established, I may have a better idea how to vote. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cyclonebiskit, we had a long discussion about adding the Breeders' Cup Classic to ITN/R and the complaint was that it would make too many American horse races, and some people argued that there were too many horse races listed in general. Just FYI on that.   Montanabw (talk)  06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Breeders' Cup Classic is the largest purse in US Thoroughbred racing and the fourth largest purse in the world. As American Pharoah was set to be retired to stud at the end of 2015, this was the only chance to test him against an older, more experienced field. And he trounced them. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support given above explanation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support: Seems significant. Would like to see more of an update regarding true significance, though, as I'm not an expert on horse racing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. No doubt American Pharoah is going to be one of those once in a lifetime prodigies remembered for decades after, like Secretariat or Sea Biscuit.  That means they might appear several times.  I would think the Breeders' Cup winner should be ITN/R if it isn't already.  Winning this horse race makes the article front page worthy all by itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Article is not ready - There's no prose about the results of the races, outside the mention of the grand slam aspect. This is far from sufficient for an update. --M ASEM (t) 05:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 13 races, and we already have separate articles on all of them, the Breeders' Cup Classic article has all years... glad to work on whatever you need, if you could clarify.  Montanabw (talk)  06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just found out before your comment. I'm unmarking it right now. Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you talking about American Pharoah? The lede to this Featured Article is updated, and there's a new "Grand Slam" section covering today's Breeders' Cup victory. The other three Triple Crown races are recounted in detail. What more does it need? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (No,  I think they mean 2015 Breeders' Cup, that's the boldfaced article... we had Pharoah as ITN when he won the triple crown.  )
 * If we are going with the Breeder's Cup as the target article (and even if not and we're going with Am.Pharaoh), there's very little actual update in prose. --M ASEM  (t) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , we are going with 2015 Breeders' Cup, which was only created a week ago. Per my comment above (13 races, each with separate articles) can you clarify what you need? I just added quite a bit more prose, is it better now?   Montanabw (talk)  07:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. As a note, we're not looking for super quality in ITN articles, but just that the update is there, and since the race was completed, something more than a result table is needed and the few para of prose you added is exactly sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I'm not clear on how significant this is, because I don't know much about horse racing. However, what I've read suggests that it is significant and possibly ITN material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This win puts American Pharoah on a very short list of the greatest horses ever. This columnist  for example, following Saturday's victory, calls him 'immortal' and a 'Mount Rushmore' horse. --SubSeven (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted with a simple blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WTF is ""grand slam" in American horse racing"? Nergaal (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this just a term pretty much invented in 2015? Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. To my knowledge the term was first propagated on June 7, 2015, one day after Pharoah won the Triple Crown, by Bob Ehalt on his influential ESPN racing blog. In retrospect, one might argue that "Grand Slam" was an invention of the Breeders' Cup/Keeneland promotional team. As it was by no means certain at that point that Pharoah would continue to race the full season, as a rhetorical enticement for him to delay retirement, it worked. By the time Pharaoh raced in the Haskell a couple months later (August 2), it was being used casually by NBC television commentators, the promise of great things yet to come. Maybe "Grand Slam" deserves its own cynical article, but I am not cynical enough, one day after seeing him triumph so handily and shattering the Keeneland course record, to undertake that yet myself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless wether this item should be on ITN, a grand slam is a jargon which NEEDS explaining (i.e. wikilinking of some sorts). Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the idea of creating Grand slam (horse racing) (as there exists one already for National Hunt Racing in the UK) but not sure we really have more than a definition. Thoughts?   Montanabw (talk)  01:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we could somehow confirm Ehalt's first usage&mdash;how would we go about that?&mdash;we'd have the germ of fhe article. We can certainly credit him for having used it as early as June 7. His was the first usage I could find when I was Googling in early August. We do have the term defined two different ways (for colts and fillies) in the "Equestrian Sports" section of Grand Slam. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I support this being posted but I think the blurb should be a brief explanation of what was done. I might suggest "Triple Crown winner American Pharoah wins the Breeders' Cup Classic, becoming the first horse to win all four races" or something along those lines.  Besides avoiding debatable terminology, it removes ambiguity by specifying "four and only four" races won. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Rugby World Cup Final

 * Oppose unless and until a reasonable-length prose match synopsis is written. The very second that is completed, consider this a full support.  -- Jayron 32 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to mention that it was the highest-scoring final. Neljack (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support despite disappointing outcome. Perhaps should mention that the All Blacks are now the most successful team in the history of the World Cup. (see alternative blurb). Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb. It's on ITN/R, so all it needs is an update. Add a match summary and we can post this. Fuebaey (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note article has a match summary so should be added. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak support – I don't know how usual the Australia–New Zealand rugby rivalry is, but I was hoping that any other nation would have made it. That shouldn't affect the annual tournament's recurrence. Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt Blurb 2 is fine. No need to mention highest scoring or most successful team. AIR corn (talk)
 * Support - This is a notable sporting achievement. The Cup also has a huge TV audience, so it is an event that many visitors would likely be interested by.  (That being said, I'm a New Zealander, so maybe take my support with a grain of salt.) Kiwi128 (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as ITN/R now that a reasonably-sourced match summary has been added. Alt 2 blurb is the usual standard for sporting tournaments on ITN. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2. Post the result, not the trivia. Resolute 14:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted a few things still need referencing but the update for the final is okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Closest asteroid this big in at least 9 years

 * Oppose This seems much more suited as a DYK, and the fact the NASA blurb downplays any potential impact aspects, it's hard to justify this for inclusion at ITN. --M ASEM (t) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Even days after discovery probability of impact was 150 sigmas which is impossible. That'd be like a person with a 2350 or minus 2150 IQ (if it were a perfect bell curve, it's not). NASA doesn't need to upplay potential impact risks because stupider or dishonester people do that too much already and they're actually honest people that speak accurately, unlike CEOs or FIFA or marketers or politicians or lawyers. Also, the error ellipse is 3 kilometers wide (thanks to radar) which means they know how much it clears by to better than one part in 100,000. It's the ones decades in the future where there's a maybe 1 in 1 million chance of impact that'll shrink to zero when they get more data. If there actually was any chance of hitting we would have the location pinned down to 3km at worst now and probably wouldn't have had time do shit about it (besides evacuate). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Masem. For most people, a non-event. Sca (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this (and the fact that we are an encyclopedia) is the relevant statement: "This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029". The article is in good shape, and I am frankly surprised people think this is not ITNworthy because the object will not strike the earth. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can see why some find this interesting, and I can see why others goes meh. It's relatively big, but not actually *that* close. (Think <1 lunar distance.) At no stage is the object AFAICT above a routine 1 on the Torino Scale. -- KTC (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well some people wouldn't think of meters as relatively big cause they don't realize how powerful solar system speeds are but really anything having to do with hitting is not relevant or needed for ITN cause they're such low probability events. Near Earth objects, extrasolar planets and cosmology-type things are some of the biggest current research areas in astronomy and as additions to human knowledge about something beyond than our small blue dot they're posted sometimes. And doubling resolution seems like the least important of the remainder (electronics advance all the time). So I agree with Medeis' assessment. It's not that beyond the Moon, either. Only 1.2 times further when the Moon is far from Earth. (It passed 0.74 lunar distances from the Moon before Earth but I didn't think that was important enough to mention). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting a non-happening; seems appropriate for DYK. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's only a "support" if we're doomed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say that it would definitely be a support if we were doomed. ;) Other aspects of the situation could have made it more appropriate for ITN, such as observation potential. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support – Sensationalist comments in the nomination aside, asteroids are not something we often get to feature. It's in that murky area at the border of ITN and DYK, but given the media attention to it I see no harm in showcasing this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Wikipedia isn't a reference to itself. And this asteroid is passing quite a ways away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's close by astronomy standards (the NASA list of close approaches can only be set to display 5, 10, ~20, ~40, ~80, ~120 and ~200 lunar distance maximums (the orbits of Earth and Mars average 205 lunar distances apart) and even if TB had been only 150 meters @ 1.266 LD that seems to happen about twice per decade). Only the brightness of the one in 2006 is known so TB is only probabilistically more likely to be larger than the 2006 one so that couldn't possibly be the blurb. Of all the ways one could word the relative infrequency I was not suggesting comparing it to Wikipedia with an asterisk* needed, that would be incredibly unimaginative and navel gazing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This sort of thing interests me greatly, but I don't think it is ITN material because of its lack of relevance for most visitors. It seems like most people would not have seen it (observation was apparently reasonably difficult), and it posed no threat whatsoever.  However, it would be great DYK material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Kogalymavia Flight 9268

 * Support with expansion. The BBC is now reporting that most of the people on board have died. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon update; major aircraft accident. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As it is the top story for last 12 hours on most news channels around the world and why not Wikipedia. Sh eri ff  (report) 11:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * btw- its not even been 12 hours since it happened. Someone in the media must b highly prophetic (or responsible?).Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, notability is obvious. sst✈discuss 11:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - top story. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - easily notable enough. Dismas |(talk) 12:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Per previous. Let's get this out there quickly. Sca (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article in good shape for posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As already been noted, notable enough.  Jim Car  ter  15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 100 victims is a sufficiently large plane I'd think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Target article says 224 deaths (no survivors). Same per AP, Reuters. Sca (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I've reworked the blurb now it is known there are no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the article about ISIS claiming to have shot it down? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sca (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Merge-Posted] 2015 Bucharest nightclub fire

 * oppose mere macabre death count doesn't make it noteworthy of itself.Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose barring any significant impact on the world at large. --M ASEM (t) 03:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The instructions say "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country.". Please can you explain how your comment is not an instance of this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My statement is not to meant to make the country were it happened a factor. It was a very much preventable accident in a nightclub somwhere. That does not make it a notable long term event that meets WP:NEVENT nor WP:NOT NEWS because it does not appear to have any long term impact out of the club and ppl involved (read: to the rest of the world at large). --M ASEM (t) 12:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon update; notable event being widely covered in an undercovered part of the world(on ITN). The fire affected largely youth as it was at a rock concert. Government leaders in Romania have commented on this and altered their schedules; an emergency official said this was "without precedent". 331dot (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator, major disaster without precedent in Eastern Europe. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  09:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ' Support' major disaster, highest death toll since Brazil nightclub fire. Gizmocorot (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw support article posting out of current ITN context. Gizmocorot (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per those above, a sad event but not really ITN; nightclub fires are unfortunately fairly common. Where is all this "without precedent in Eastern Europe" coming from? It's not even without precedent in the last three years in Romania, and there have certainly been considerably worse incidents in East Europe in recent history. IIRC we did run the similar Formosa Fun Coast explosion, but with 500 injuries and significant ongoing international coverage that was an exceptional case. ‑ iridescent 10:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When has there been a nightclub fire with a high death toll? Donnie Park (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Romanian officials are stating this is without precedent(in the NBC article). 331dot (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An event with 17 injuries (10 serious) is hardly precedent for one with 27 deaths and over 150 hospitalised. It is being cited as without precedent in Romania, not without precedent in Eastern Europe. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eugen Simon above uses the term "Eastern Europe". 331dot (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf, look up; someone is claiming this is 'without precedent in Eastern Europe' two lines above me, which it clearly isn't. @331dot, both the other incidents I mention (Lame Horse fire and 2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions) were certainly nightclub fires. &#8209; iridescent 10:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I apologize; though the bigger event was in Russia while the other was much smaller in scale than this one. What matters is how this is viewed in Romania. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good spot Iridescent, clearly politicians talk crap to pander,. there word is not gospel.Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support a high number and not been such incident for a long time. Donnie Park (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The Formosa Fun Coast explosion only killed 13 people. Seems notable to me that so many years after The Station nightclub fire and the other sound-foam ignition fires (eg Lame Horse fire, Kiss nightclub fire) that there are still clubs with non-flame retardant sound foam. -- Callinus (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since, there were incidents in last few days which are more important and had more far reaching affects than this. This is more of Romanian centered story instead of a global story. Putting this on ITN would mar other important stories by pushing them down in the list. Sh eri ff  (report) 11:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can request ITN be expanded to include more entries. Not a valid argument that more 'important' events happened same week... Gizmocorot (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A common complaint here is that we have not enough turnover, not too much. Turnover is not a bad thing. If there are 'more important' events (importance is relative to the person) I invite you to nominate them. Also, the fact that this event is in Romania is immaterial(see "Please do not..." above).  331dot (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - significant number of deaths, notable. Top news in all media along with the plane crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Nightclub fires are a well-known genre of accident and often follow a pattern (poorly signed exits etc.), so an interesting topic to cover as well as a clearly notable event. Blythwood (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – Tragic for victims and families, but I don't see the wider significance. Nightclub fires with multiple deaths, some more lethal than this one, are fairly common worldwide. This wil fade quickly as a topic. (But I can see I'm in the minority.) Sca (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There was only one person dead at the Fun Coast for awhile, then two for awhile and I had no idea it eventually reached 13. Some mortally wounded might hang on for quite awhile here too so the death toll could rise. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, decades ago as a reporter I covered this one, in which 165 died. There have been quite a few of these tragedies. Sca (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support A relatively high number of casualties (injured included) and these kind of fires make for important case studies for organizers and safety officials world-wide. --Pudeo' 15:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is borderline, the notability being only due to the death toll, not some heretofore unknown principle that heavy metal fireworks displays kill nightclub audiences. But even if we were to post based on deathcount, the article now begins "The Colectiv nightclub fire was a fire".  Serious quality improvements are needed. μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't decide yet, but I won't make comparisons, especially to the Taiwanese park dust explosion, which I nominated months ago. The injuries toll is tremendous, and deaths are tragic and sudden. Unauthorised polytechnics must have been responsible for this; two band members died. The standards of ITN have been set high; we editors might be split in this because there have been other similar incidents before. We already posted this at Wikinews; so did the press. But ITN's quality of news shouldn't be the same as American (or restricted Chinese) mainstream news. C'mon, we should make ITN's quality higher, but I'm still undecided. Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at The Station nightclub fire where a heavy metal band's pyrotechnics killed 100 people in almost identical circumstances. The horrible thing is that the Romanian band didn't learn that lesson.  But ITN is not about causes.  I will not be upset whichever way this goes, but looking at it from a historical perspective it doesn't strike me as making the cut, except for the death toll. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Deadliest event in Romania in terms of number of victims since 1989 revolution, and deadliest of its kind since Kiss nightclub fire. 21:23, 31 October 2015 (EET)
 * Support given the number of fatalities. Neljack (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event in Romania; we've posted similar events to ITN multiple times before (Formosa Fun Coast explosion, Santika Club fire, etc.).  Spencer T♦ C 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support far more tragic and far more unusual than the regular mass shootings encouraged in other places around the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sca (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to have anything to do with ISIS or Boko Haram. Can you explain what you mean by "regular mass shootings encouraged in other places around the globe"? μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Standard unwarranted jab at America to continue beating this poor, dead horse. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried my best to make ITN different from the international (not American) mainstream press, but somehow death and injury tolls, circumstances, and even the nature of the incident are too overwhelming to make it different from the press anymore. Still, I'm not happy with overemphasis on usual interior nightclub fires, not counting this year's Taiwanese one, which took place outdoors. I thought, "Can the city or Romania enhance the safety of nightclubs?" I want to lean toward "oppose" because other stories that we've posted are more usually impactful than this. However, it's too overwhelming to go to this path. But I'm not leaning "support" either... yet. This is "unusual", but airplane crashes (usual they have been), sports events, awards, and elections make "unusual" criterion useless and futile. More blurbs can be added to emphasize the tragedy; why not add a Romanian heavy metal band's involvement, a stampede, and/or an unauthorized equipment? Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 21:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Casualty counting form a well-known issue with pyrotechnics. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think this is notable on an international level. With all of the items vying for ITN, an isolated fire of this size with a well-understood (and not surprising) cause is not front-page material IMO. And the causality count is not enormous compared to many other tragic events that occur regularly.  Kiwi128 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - that is a major disaster in Romanian recent history with three days of mourning. - Gsvadds (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This event only has regional notability, not global. Plenty of people die from fires every day. South Nashua (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no requirement of "international notability"; we discourage such arguments under "Please do not..." above. We cover events affecting only a single country all the time. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Affecting a single country is different than being notable only in a single country. This item is not notable outside of where it happened given the context. South Nashua (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that single-country arguments are not valid. I read much news coverage about this where I live, so it has some degree of notability outside Romania. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your statement. Guidelines are recommendations for decisions, nothing more. Otherwise, there wouldn't be discussions on decisions, the decisions would just be made by following the guidelines. There's nothing wrong with a disagreement, and again, I also disagree with you about the notability of this news item. South Nashua (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that people are making decisions based on the guidelines, as otherwise they would have little meaning. Most of what we post is notable in only one country(most general elections, sporting events, some natural disasters, etc.) and if we declined to post them all because of that, very little would be posted. But yes, you can certainly make whatever arguments you wish, regardless of their validity. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise. A natural disaster is far different than a fire in a club. And calling someone else's comments invalid doesn't help increase the validity of your own comments. South Nashua (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not intending to increase the validity of my comments. It isn't me saying so, it is this page: "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." Nevertheless, thanks for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that page is and I'm unsure how that addresses my concern (broader notability, there are plenty of notable things that are notable beyond just where they are), but that's okay. I also thank you for this discussion. South Nashua (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now, the oldest blurb is the airplane disaster in Egypt, which happened a day later. Time for all of us to cool down and go elsewhere. -- This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC) I see that the DYK will outbalance the other side in a couple hours. I'm not closing this discussion yet, but there won't be enough room for this story for long. -- This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind; I measured the length incorrectly. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ho hum, posted anyway... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

 * Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Donnie Park (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it "all-around" and not "all-round"? 59.88.205.4 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my mistake. Fixed. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * These articles still need a lot of work. Female bio is tagged for lacking adequate sources. Event article looks short in prose. Male bio looks like it's in good shape, but it's the only one.
 * Did a bit of copyediting. Altblurb should be good to go. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm seeing very little in the way of inline referencing, where do I go to verify the medal tables, the individual results etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I had an extra day to work on this, on something I'm mildly interested in as well. Oh well, too many fresh stories at the moment. Fuebaey (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per notability. Gizmocorot (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Mel Daniels

 * Weak oppose - Seems to me like this would only meet Recent Death Criteria 2, and probably only weakly. Daniels seems important in his field, but IMO he might not be notable enough for ITN. Kiwi128 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if improved Major player, member of the Basketball Hall of Fame demonstrates RD#2, as do all of his other honors (ABA All-Time Team, 2x ABA MVP, 7x ABA All-Star). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Daniels is a Hall of Famer. 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per Muboshgu.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Article is pretty short and we've historically applied stricter scrutiny to athletes than simply being in their sport's hall of fame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Leaving aside the Hall of Fame, he was a seven-time all star and two time MVP.  Seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for such a supposedly notable individual, article is barely above stub class, has about 1/3 without inline referencing and includes something called "Mel Daniels curiosidades y datos en espanol". Expand and reference, and we have a possible contender.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Wizardman  20:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Japan Series

 * It's ITN/R. I'll get WP:BASEBALL on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article. It's not nearly the size of 2015 World Series, but this should be sufficient for the main page. I'll be adding more details for the next hour or so, and tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure whether this is ready. It's a baseball tournament, so it is listed in ITN/R. "Game 5" section looks short, despite efforts to emphasize it. What troubles me more is the lack of consensus here. I mean, there isn't one person voting for it yet. Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's on ITN/R, so nobody needs to "vote" on it. It only needs to be approved in terms of quality/update. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the summaries are there. I don't think there was an issue with Game 5, but Game 4 could do with more than two sentences. Rest seem short but adequate. Fuebaey (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I added more for Game 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support – Being a recurring event strikes again *sigh*. Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 23:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Does an admin mind posting this before it gets stale? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TRM. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Tanzanian presidential election

 * Wow, impressive article. Easy call based on notability and quality for strong support. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * wait the election is still undr dispute. I added some to the page on the controversy. Or at the very least mention the controversy over the CCM (and the first time the opposition united under 1 candidate)Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Raif Badawi

 * Support – Another free-speech hero. (The comma after Saudi bloger isn't necessary or correct.) Sca (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is a reasonable ITN blurb, but that said, looking over Badawi's article, there's one section unsourced (though it contains a named quote source, so should be easy) but I'm more considered on the second half of the article. I would like a second opinion because my first read through it it felt like it was WP:COATRACK on how much attention the Charlie Hebdo incident (particularly the post-incident rallies) in contrast to what attention Badawi's lashings got that happened at the same time. It is not that there isn't discussion outlining the different responses but as not an area I'm really familiar with it does feel wording choices are made to focus heavily on the different reactions, calling out on the world on why they didn't support Badawi more. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant, it is the first time a Saudi was given this award. --Egeymi (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I remember we posted news regarding this award in the past. And this time, too, it is clearly significant. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Significance on the merits is already established as this is ITNR; as Masem states there are some sourcing issues. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a long-term, high-profile free speech campaigner granted an prestigious award, placing him alongside many very prominent public figures. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Sakharov_Prize has numerous notable people. Important topic that has implications for EU foreign policy. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, comments on the merits are not necessary as this is ITNR. Sourcing needs improvement before posting. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added sourcing. --cyrfaw ( talk ) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd run with the third wording (alt II), as it's useful to avoid regionally-different spellings when we can. G RAPPLE   X  14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I reformatted the whole "International reactions" section, but it still has a lot of quotes; more like quotefarming. George Ho (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely is far too much quotefarming. The COATRACKing issue is not as bad but I feel that with that many quotes (and as long as they are), it's pushing a very specific POV; yes, much of the rest of the world was critical of the fact that he faced the lashings for standing up to human rights, that's important, but it needs a bit more neutrality before it can be ITN. We don't need to document every single reaction out there, a summary with a few choice quotes from predominant world leaders would be sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gutted another 10kB of quotes/refs. I think it might be passable now, though could do with another set of eyes to recheck. Fuebaey (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * once the last citation tag in the "Personal life" section is dealt with and the under-construction template is removed, I'll go ahead and post it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fuebaey and I were able to make the article very clean from yucky stuff. Now the article is all set to go... right? Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb II – Kudos to and  for vastly improving the article in a timely manner. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] China abolishes one-child policy

 * Support. A notable change in public policy for China.  Brief updates have been added to the lead and in the article itself; a little more would be nice, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - This change is definitely ITN appropriate and the article is fine, my only hesitation is from the linked article above this is a plan and not yet the actual revocation of the law/policy; it would likely make more sense to post on when the law is officially removed from the books. But I suspect this will be the point of major coverage. --M ASEM  (t) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the blurb should be clarified to mention that China, though it's abolishing the one-child policy, is effectively switching to a "two-child policy", which is still a government-imposed limit.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ever heard Love Minus Zero/No Limit? Sca (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but suggest more specific blurb per WaltCip. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as WaltCip has noted, perhaps "in favour of a two-child policy". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as very notable, interesting news. I also think that the blurb should highlight the two-child policy, rather than implying that government restrictions have ended. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the alt-blurb. Notable change, and One-child policy is a reasonably quality article that will help readers learn more on the subject. Pedro : Chat  15:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but oppose use of word impose in blurb. Gizmocorot (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * impose: "1. To establish or apply by authority. " Seems to fit perfectly. Also conveniently contrasts in diction with the positive-connotation word "abolish". Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * added alt blurb with introduces instead of impose Gizmocorot (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduces implies a sort of optionalness not known for in policies of this nature put forth by the PRC leadership. Introduces implies they're making a suggestion or a recommendation.  Imposes is exactly what is going on here; the PRC leadership tells the country what it will do with regards to their reproductive system, that sounds a lot like imposing.  -- Jayron 32 01:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we make "two-child policy" the 2nd article to bold? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to post but then realized that there's an update missing - the main article says nothing about the new policy. And the update is super thin at the moment. Makes sense to fix this first. --Tone 18:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the article linking to two-child policy, and mentioning continued criticism of China's reproductive policy. Still not a large update, but it should serve to meet ITN's minimum update guidelines. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as a major political development regarding a very prominent policy. My preference is for "in favour of" in the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - will likely have significant impact on the future demographics of China and the world. Prefer Alt Blurb 3. -Zanhe (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a major development in a major world power. Prefer Alt Blurb 3. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a substantial change of a very controversial policy in a world superpower. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb per reasoning by Jayron32. Feel free to pick at it and swap to "favo(u)r" or "introduces" if discussions swing that way. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Bidhya Devi Bhandari

 * The article needs some work but otherwise a new head of state is ITNR. --Tone 07:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Head of State is ITN/R, albeit for a ceremonial role. While she is Nepal's first female President, her predecessor was the country's first President (the country previously was a constitutional monarchy prior to 2008). Update wise, this was a stub yesterday and now no longer is. However, the first two sections lack inline citations. Fuebaey (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Citation added. Thanks--[[Image:Star_प्रमुख.png|30px]] Biplab Anand  ( Talk with me ) 09:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this ceremonial? Our articles on the seats of power in Nepal are very vague on this and while I know they are not the target article it would help tremendously to be clear if the president position is ceremonial or one of power. --M ASEM (t) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look at https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/AGuidetoGovernmentinNepal.pdf (chapter 2). Yes, it's ceremonial, the president can delay but not reject decisions. Narayanese (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would still Support since it is a elected position with some power, and her article is in decent shape, as well as ITNR. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR. Article is of decent quality. 117.221.121.244 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Sca (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Support as ITNR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli was not posted because of article quality issue. Let's not miss this one. Article is in decent shape. -Zanhe (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "first woman" in blurb. It is about as condescending as possible.  "First woman X" started being insulting about 80 years ago.  Just say she was elected, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added another ALTblurb. Satisfied, μηδείς? --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the "first woman" blurb. It is a landmark and real progress in Nepal, and nothing condescending about that. -Zanhe (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The fact that she is the first female president is also being prominently featured in the news coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tx.. Medeis- I don't think there is condescending about the blurb at all, Even the guardian and the NYT reported saying she is the first female president. Thanks--[[Image:Star_प्रमुख.png|30px]] Biplab Anand  ( Talk with me ) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Alternative Blurb I think for a female to get elected as a president of a country is a good enough reason to be In The News, there is no need to mention "(pictured)", sounds odd since the picture is there and must be of the person featured in the story. United States couldn't elect a female president in over two hundred years while Nepal's second president is female. Mentioning the gender adds an additional value to the story. Sh eri ff  (report) 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly support - this would be front page news material (as an election) even if Bhandari wasn't the first female president. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb (with picture), adds flavor to what would otherwise be a bland ITN/R post (and it's a notable part of the story). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Cassini Enceladus flyby

 * Oppose Looks like routine scientific mission, unless I'm missing something. No extraordinary findings either. Brandmeistertalk  21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Actually, this pass by the moon wil be at a very low altitude and is designed to fly through a plume of fluid being ejected from the surface. Jus  da  fax   21:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support EXCEPT the blurb doesn't have a single target article in it. The nominator should look at other nominations if this is an issue.  I'd support per se, but I am not sure what I'd be supporting, given how the nomination is formatted. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually this has had a lot of "fanfare" with the ice, water, etc. More importantly, the discovery of oxygen on that comet was more notable as changing the theories of the formation of the universe.Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, I think you might be thinking of the Rosetta flyby of comet 67P. This nomination is about Cassini. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Brandmeister. This does appear to be a routine scientific mission, considering NASA had done a flyby of Enceladus at least eight different times before this. There doesn't appear to be any significant findings of interest, either, at least to my knowledge.  Prhdbt  [talk]  01:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Somewhat notable flyby, but it isn't front page material IMO. If some groundbreaking discovery is made because of the flyby, then a re-nomination might be an order. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
"Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" is featured on Main Page. I have yet to see event developments aside from Reactions, even when the event is covered by news frequently. Pull it out? George Ho (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: No longer breaking news and no longer being regularly updated in such a way that it merits front-page status. The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen is still going on too, and we pulled it off months ago... -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Replace with Syrian Civil War. The Russian intervention is the last act of this ongoing event. If this is not an alternative and it's between keeping or removing Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War only, I am for keep: It's a war that involves multiple world powers, and I see plenty of news articles on it. Banedon (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with replacing it with the Syrian Civil War, as suggested by Banedon. Although a terrifyingly large article (>300 kB with over 800 references), it appears regularly updated whenever major events happen with links to numerous articles about notable offensives that take place. Probably the most useful link we can provide in regards to this conflict. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Replace as suggested above; Russia's involvement is now at the point where it is not top news, along with the involvement of other nations, but the conflict is still news in general and the page being updated.331dot (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: If we're going to replace it, we need a different article than Syrian Civil War. That article is not being updated at a rate I would consider to be in line with the purpose of the "Ongoing" section.  There have been only two significant additions in the past 9 days.  The most recent,  involves outdated information (from January!!! or earlier) and the other is mostly stylistic and organizational changes,  and did not add any new information.  Thus, in the past 9 days (from the 50 diff page history) we haven't had a single substantive update on the Syrian Civil War to that article.  If it were an article in the main ITN section, it'd have rotated off by now.  I can't support this for a good replacement.  As of now, unless someone can massively update that article, and/or propose a new target, I have to vote for Remove and not replace.  -- Jayron 32 11:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove there is no need to replace it with one of the numerous conflicts going on around the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove I don't see significant updates to the Syrian Civil War to use that in its place as more notable than other conflicts at the present time. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, the Syrian Civil War receives more news coverage than any other ongoing conflict I'm aware of. It also involves four of the world's five UN security council members. What other present conflict is there that is comparable to this? Banedon (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of conflicts and situations get continuing news coverage, but the question is how much of that leads to encyclopedic content. That's the value we need to judge here and I don't see that for the Syrian civil war right now; it's happening, but it's not always significant events. (as when Russia opted to get involved). --M ASEM (t) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to say you're wrong, but IF there is more information about the Syrian Civil War available which could be added to our article, it has yet to be added to the article. The purpose of the "ongoing" section of ITN is the same as the rest of ITN: To highlight quality, new Wikipedia content on quality articles.  Whether or not the Syrian Civil War is still getting new news reports isn't important, if no one is using that news to update the article in question.  All that matters, the ONLY thing that matters here, if you want this to be in ITN, is that the article has quality updates.  Any other argument makes no bit of difference.  If you want it posted, fix the article.  It will be posted.  -- Jayron 32 15:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War; will let discussion about replacing it with Syrian Civil War play out a little further.  Spencer T♦ C 20:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Philip French

 * Support as very important to his field; we posted Roger Ebert and this person seems to be similar. His successor said he inspired "a generation of film critics", had gotten recognition related to his field.  The update seems cited but I don't know if anything more can be said about his death. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added another small detail about his death, but that's all I can do. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Article looks fine. Notability as a leading critic is enough to merit posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Leading writer on his specialist topic. I've read his book Westerns which is absolutely fascinating and insightful, so support. Blythwood (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports, which I find convincing. Article marked "ready" so suggest we post. Jus  da  fax   17:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ranjit Roy Chaudhury

 * Support Sure seems to meet RD#2. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not entirely sure about whether he meets the RD bar (not my field), but I think the state of the article nudges this over. Sad how many notable non-Western bios only get written after they've died. Fuebaey (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Afghanistan earthquake

 * Conditional Support - pending article improvement. --Saqib (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article a bit. Should be ready enough to go on the main page? Blurb needs to be changed. Majority of casualties are from Pakistan so this is not purely Afghanistan earthquake.--Saqib (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on improvements - No question on importance. I would just give this a few hours to get the initial details and death estimates right and clean up the article a bit. --M ASEM (t) 13:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait Visited 5 different news source and gotten 4 different death and injuries count, none of which matches what's currently on the article. Give it a little time for more information to come out. -- KTC (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article not ready yet.--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb with death toll... Gizmocorot (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and marked as ready. Just needs agreement on a blurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - alternative blurb and with the article in its renamed form (Hindu Kush earthquake) Spiderone  16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb with death toll. Capitalistroadster (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Although, it's after the fact but you need to remove India from the headline as earthquake did not affect India much, it felt in India but then it felt in so many other countries as well, if we are not mentioning those then we do not need to mention India. Casualties are only being reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sh eri ff  (report) 17:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Update death toll to 310+ or atleast over 300.-- Stemoc 07:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was already ✅ although WP:ERRORS is the more appropriate place to report items after they have already been posted to the MP. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Flip Saunders

 * Oppose Saunders was a good coach, but he was not of the transcendent level, like a Dean Smith or Jerry Tarkanian (who both deserved RD, so please don't re-litigate those postings). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Appears to have been just a regular coach who had some success. No championships, and no coach of the year honors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Ivorian presidential election

 * Support: ITN/R. Article could be larger, but it is adequate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Not exciting or splashy, but decent article and INT/R as noted. Jus  da  fax   10:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits not required as this is ITNR; update and blurb are all that it is needed. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna close this nomination. Unfortunately, newer stories have been posted, leaving no room for this story. I mark this as "Stale". -- Georgie says " Happy Halloween!" (  BOO!  ) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support National-level election. South Nashua (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Omani elections

 * Comment: At this point, the article should not be posted in my opinion. If one were to replace the dates, # of voters and names of candidates, this article could reasonably used as an article for an Oman election from a previous year. There should be text outlining what makes this election different, even though it's "fixed". Without an update like that, I wouldn't consider the article to be sufficiently updated.  Spencer T♦ C 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This falls under ITN/R, but I agree somewhat with Spencer in that the update is insufficient. It should ideally summarise the results of the election, even if the candidates all stand as independents. The final paragraph (four sentences) attempts to do this but only mentions one winning candidate, out of 85. Fuebaey (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That was the only candidate that I could find that was picked out in the coverage of the election. For everyone else, there is just a winner's list... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Guatemalan presidential election
Support – important governmental change. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update odd there is no update I can see, given the actor Morales won 70% of the vote. I can't get to this for a few hours, but it should obviously be posted once it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a late night nom, so I didn't get to it until now. I've added some prose, albeit incomparable to the seemingly comprehensive Spanish version. There's scope to expand, but I think it gets the main point across. Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ASAP more than 3KB five sentence three source expansion for rather unusual landslide opposition presidential election. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - explanation needed on this notable election? George Ho (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 04:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hamilton F1 World Champion

 * Support Highly notable. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and sit back waiting for all the "well it's not over yet, what about the other races" brigade to demonstrate their position. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurb implies the constructors' championship was only just decided when it was decided earlier in the season. The bolded article should be 2015 Formula One season rather than Hamilton or Mercedes. Newsworthiness isn't an issue as both are covered under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest an altblurb, I agree that it should be made clearer that the constructors' was decided earlier, but I tried to keep the blurb short. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's such a big deal, replace the word "as" with "after" before "his team". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Added Altblurb. The season (ITN/R article) is updated but not fully sourced. For those that don't follow F1, we could use the infobox picture rather than one that looks like a random driver in a car. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe he is quite well recognizable with his helmet. Also, he is a racing driver after all, and he achieved the feat looking like that. The infobox photo is a little old, there's a newer one from two weeks ago, but he looks like a jackass in that one... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a person who hasn't followed F1 in years, "recognisable" assumes that everyone knows what his helmet looks like, which is similar to a football (soccer) fan describing Cristiano Ronaldo, to a layman, by the colour of his boots. Fuebaey (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, what the hell is wrong with an actual photo of Hamilton himself? This bizarre image is impenetrable to most of our readers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. He has secured the championship. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Winning (or clinching?) the title in one of the world's largest, if not the world's largest, motorsport is an obviously huge deal.  Zappa  24  Mati   23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but oppose both blurbs as is - the blurbs should make it clear that it is the 2015 Formula One season that is being referred to. So for instance in the alternative blurb, instead of "Formula One World Drivers' Championship", I'd prefer "2015 Formula One World Drivers' Championship". Banedon (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Polish elections
* Strong support – Law and Justice winning 39 percent is an ominous development for the EU. (Note: I don't think Sejm, the Polish word for parliament, will be understood by most English-lang. readers.) Sca (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support First conservative win since collapse of communism in Poland in 1989. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment glad to see we're not itching to use "plurality" which makes little sense to most English speakers. Lead is still based around exit polls so obviously oppose until the reality dawns.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, if the exit polls are correct, this is going to be an outright majority, so this wouldn't be an occasion to use the word "plurality". It's not really the first conservative win (Law and Justice was already in power 2005–2007), but it would be the first time since 1989 that the winning party woulnd't need to form a coalition. — Kpalion(talk) 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support pending article improvement. Article has quite a few unsourced sections. -Zanhe (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until Monday. Official results are announced then. All we have at the moment are exit polls. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what one may expect in an indirect democracy, unlike direct one. Platforma Obywatelska exhausted itself while all other parties, except Law and Justice, remained impotent. Brandmeistertalk   16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sejm" is one of those words that for some reason is used a lot in the media (for example the Telegraph uses it without a gloss), probably because it lacks a direct English translation (similarly, articles on German politics usually use Bundestag, because the most literal translation "Federal Diet" is rather confusing). Smurrayinchester 16:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: nearly all english language readers have the ability to click the blue link... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not make the blurb instantly intelligible to the reader? Or would that not be the Wiki way? Sca (talk)
 * PS: I'd never heard the word sejm 'til I lived Warsaw in the mid-'90s. It's not an English word, and its Polish orthography makes it unpronounceable to unschooled English speakers (even though it's actually easy to pronounce). Sca (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support for the alternative blurb. Important development in Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until Tuesday, The official results have been released showing Law and Justice getting 37.5 per cent of the vote but the official number of seats will not be announced until Tuesday. I would suggest that we not put anything up until we get the official results. See US News and World Report
 * Preceding comment posted by Capitalistroadster – Sca (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – I wasn't able Tuesday to find "official" results, but I don't think we should delay posting this significant story any longer. Sca (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb mentioning Ms Szydlo, as she is the candidate to be Prime Minister, although she is not the party's overall leader &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Post already. The etymology of  'sejm' "household" is clear enough that challenging it is beyond bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Sejm' old offensive blather. Sca (talk)


 * Note - As of my post, the article has been tagged for accuracy. Might be a good idea to clear that up before putting this one on the Main Page. Jus  da  fax   16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – updated with official results from Reuters. Sca (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still top-tagged with disputed factual accuracy. Could someone resolve it? Brandmeistertalk  19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it may be "post now" or "post already" but with a nasty maintenance tag, we need to work it out. Having said that, I'm not clear on what parts of the article need fixing,  There are whole paragraphs without inline referencing and the table claiming to referenced by [38] is pure fiction.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready: Tag has been removed as Talk page indicates clear consensus for the current presentation (prime ministerial candidates instead of party leaders in infobox). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Clock simple.svg – Sca (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Old news. Sca (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why altblurbs are written in Polish language. There must be a reason or a mistake. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * George, this is the Pollish-langauge version:
 * W wyborach parlamentarnych w Polsce zwyciężyło Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (na zdjęciu prezes partii Jarosław Kaczyński) uzyskując 37,58 % głosów w wyborach do sejmu. – Sca (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only Polish found in the blurbs are proper nouns. I'm not sure why the second (French) and third (German) blurbs were added but perhaps you could ask the proposer. Fuebaey (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To show how far behind we are. Sca (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:POINT. Ask some questions if it doesn't make sense to you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fish, vistors, and news.... Sca (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. Consensus seems to be the updates are sufficient, and maintenance issues seem to have been dealt with.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: Extremely disappointing to see this took three days to post, with the rationale for holding up posting being a tendentious tag that even a cursory glance at the Talk page would demonstrate shouldn't have been placed. I'm glad it's finally up, but jeez, one hopes to see more initiative from the editing community -- yes, that includes the good folks here at ITN/C -- in getting stuff like this ship-shape. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Fully agree with preceding comment by Kudzu. – Sca (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Maureen O'Hara

 * support - notable and accomplished actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support but needs improvement - As TRM points out, most of the article is unreferenced. I'm not fully sure on her meeting the RD criteria but would edge in favor of meeting that. --M ASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Obvious candidate for inclusion. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support. Notable, influential definitely - one of the last of her generation, but the article needs much more thorough sourcing. Challenger l (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak support – Per Masem. Very famous. Sca (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Famous actress with a long career and numerous film roles with John Ford and John Wayne. The article needs some improvements, but that shouldn't stop her from an inclusion. --Clibenfoart (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the last people from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Her filmography turned into a separate page. I need help on reinserting it to parent article. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong or unusual about having the filmography at its own article, given its size. You might want to pick out a few works and list her first and last movies briefly below the redirect to the separate article.  I'll be busy for the next several hours, or I'd do it myself now. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As a comment, while we would not worry about the state of linked articles that stem from the bolded one for ITN, having that many unsourced quotes on the filmography page is a bad thing and should be remedied, though that would not hold up her main article. --M ASEM (t) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support article has a couple of tags need addressing, but her career and recognition obviously merit posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on importance; household name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly RD-worthy. Agree with George Ho that the filmography should be restored to the article, instead of another click away. Jus  da  fax   19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have referenced every tagged item. I don't oppose restoring the filmography per se, but doing so would be highly problematic since there are quite a few editorial statements about the works that have no references.  Simply adding a selected works list with bluelinked works in which she's credited would be fine, if someone wants to do that.  I see no reason not to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While this clears the CNs, there's several whole paragraphs unsourced that are more than just listing film credits (that is, contain claims that needs statements). --M ASEM (t) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please tag a few items then. Most of the "she appeared in" stuff does not need a ref if there's a bluelink to a work she's been credited in.  It is a lot easier to look for refs for tagged items than to read peoples' minds as to what they would like reffed but haven't specified.  PS< I will only be on line a few minutes at a time for the next 3 1/2 hours, so the nominator is invited to help with the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At minimum each paragraph needs an inline source, period. (And if there were unsourced quotes on the page, they would need those). I've also found that editors get very upset when you orange tag or CN tag an article that's been nominated at ITN, because they seen it as a malicious action, so it becomes counter productive. --M ASEM (t) 22:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I CN tag such nominees all the time, but if no one wants more than at least one ref per paragraph that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A minimum of one inline per paragraph helps to make sure that readers have a good expectation where to find a source to back up material, and gives potential editors a sign that material should be sourced when they add. More sources are always appreciated and a few places (in general, not here) where sources are required like on quotes, but a minimum of one inline per paragraph is a good rule of thumb. (I'm adding this comment after its been posted and the diff Medeis links below and it's fine now). --M ASEM (t) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * W'll, jeez, Masem, barnstars is . . . thataway. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ready the article is updated by well over 2KB with more than some two dozen sources, at worst one per paragraph, although usually well better. This should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 03:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, that was quick! μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Murphy Anderson

 * Article is in pretty good shape, needs a few refs but not much overall. I won't vote on this since it is not a field I am intimate with, but the guy seems storied enough that I suggest editors here have a look. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Don't really see how this gentleman was more significant than the average comic book artist. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Thomas G. Stemberg
"Romney recalled that shortly after he was elected, Mr. Stemberg asked him why he ran for governor. Romney said he wanted to help people, and Mr. Stemberg replied that if he really wanted to help, he should give everyone access to health care, which Romney said he hadn’t really considered before.
 * Support - Criteria seems there. Article is fine save for one sentence that needs a source "Stemberg is also an ardent philanthropist in myriad of areas pertaining to education." but that should be easy to add and/or remove it until one can be found. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I doubt he's recognizable outside the US, even if Staples Inc. has branches in several countries. Brandmeistertalk  19:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending some article flow and sourcing improvements. It's not just that Stemberg founded Staples, listen to Mitt Romney talk about his significance:

“Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”"


 * So that's impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - per criterias met.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are thousands upon thousands of companies. Co-founding one, even a very notable one, doesn't necessarily equal ITN-level significance in one's field, and he doesn't appear to be a particularly recognizable figure, either inside the US or out. I also don't give much weight to the Obamacare angle - lots of people had suggested similar proposals, and I doubt Obamacare is what Stemberg had in mind. Having said that, I suppose he was an innovator in retail office supply, but that seems like a pretty narrow field. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not meeting the RD criteria. As stated, founding a notable company doesn't make one very important to their field.  His influence on the ACA (likely unintended) doesn't make him notable to a field.  331dot (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous two comments. Mr. Stemberg seems notable only within a discrete U.S. business niche. Sca (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd just like to point out that nearly all businesspeople engage in charitable giving due to the benefits in the tax code and for the approbation of their peers, and mentioning their charity in RD nominations does nothing for the chances of getting posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people give enough to charity to earn the title "philanthropist", and it does mean something. The Walton family engages in almost zero charitable efforts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane Patricia

 * Support I'd say a major hurricane, especially with a qualifier like "strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere", is worth posting. It helps that the article is in nice shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Wait until landfall actually occurs before posting, of course. Still offshore at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was surprised this wasn't up yet, so the blurb is prenature by a few hours. I see no reason we can't post with an appropriate blurb, then update is as needed. There is no question whether it will make landfall. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait Per my comments on the talkpage, wait until landfall and until there's a clearer picture of what damage it's causing. We already have Typhoon Koppu in ITN—if this runs now, we'll have the perverse situation of "storm uproots a few trees and is possibly linked to a landslide" running above "storm kills 50 people and leaves 100,000 homeless". ‑ iridescent 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree this should wait till landfall, which will be by this evening (the next 6 hours or so), but the hurricane is being compared to Typhoon Haiyan which killed 6,300, and has sustained winds of 200mph 350 kmph.
 * I mostly agree, except that 200+ mph and a record 879 mbar is by itself more a piece of news than uprooting a few trees. Cato censor (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. While we can't post a "makes landfall" blurb yet, we can definitely post a blurb about it being the strongest hurricane on record. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on that basis I have added an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, You can also give some figures in the blurb as "strongest ever" may not convey that much information anymore in this day and age where such records get broken almost every year. E.g. one can mention the 325 km/h sustained wind speeds and the 400 km/h wind gusts. Count Iblis (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Strongest ever, eh? Yeah that's notable and ITN-worthy. Jus  da  fax   19:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above. It is already causing heavy weather on coastal towns. See The wheather channel. Cato censor (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready on the basis it is the strongest hurricane ever, that altblurb can be used now. The storm already killed six as it was forming, if that matters, but most importantly our readers will be looking for this, given the coverage. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted a cut-down alt blurb. The "on the Pacific coast of Mexico" part of the original altblurb sounded ungrammatical to me, so I left it out for now. Perhaps someone can suggest a better formulation if people feel we need the "near Mexico" part. In any case, the blurb should be updated once it makes landfall. Thue (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Very much agree with posting it now. The blurb can be updated as necessary when there are new updates. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It has also made landfall, but I appreciate the effort made in shortening blurbs. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was surprised by posting without much effect...but good job on tweaking it. IOfcourse we can update if, lord forbid, its so bad.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The blurb currently sounds like a fragment. Should it not say "Hurricane Patricia (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere."? Andise1 (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  Spencer T♦ C 06:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should replace the word "hurricane" with the word "tropical cyclone" because technically, since only tropical cyclones in the North Pacific east of the International Date Line and the North Atlantic are called hurricanes, Hurricane Patricia is the most intense "hurricane" ever recorded. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm admittedly not very experienced in storm nomenclature and I see both terms used seemingly interchangeably in the article; this is probably best brought up at WP:ERRORS.  Spencer T♦ C 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Puisseguin road crash

 * Support pending article expansion Oppose per below ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article in current state, would support if the article was in a better state. It's too short, the article contains little more text than would be in the blurb above.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is an unfortunate traffic accident, but there's presently no evidence of any purposeful misdoings here. This would likely fail WP:NEVENT. --M ASEM (t) 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose tis mere counting of casualties dotes not notability make. Also per Masem.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on improvements it is a worst France road accident in more than 30 years. Number of causalities is also significant. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Horrific mass-casualty event and something highly unusual in a developed country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not thatunusual. Germanwings went down ad there have been other road/bus accidents involving tourists etc(in Switzerland a year or so ago if memory serves).Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This would of been posted if it had taken place in...--109.149.136.178 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing about the nation where this happened to consider. It was a unfortunate traffic accident: a truck driver (with no evidence they were doing anything outside of proper driving) lost control of his truck, tried to but failed to avoid hitting a bus carrying a number of senior passengers, and when the bus crashed and caught fire, they couldn't get most of them out in time. Tragic regardless where in the world it happened, but it is not going to make any significant impact on the world at large being a random traffic accident. This is why it fails WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT. Perfect story for Wikinews, but not ITN. --M ASEM (t) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it happened in Times Square with the same outcome? Well would it be the same outcome. No doubt it would get 10x the media coverage, even if it was a tragic accident. --109.149.136.178 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If the exact same situation occurred in Times Square, it would still not be appropriate for WP or ITN, even if it got 10x the coverage. It's a very short-tailed news story because it was simply a tragic traffic accident. --M ASEM (t) 21:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with the IP above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A bad accident, but (a) we should not be using the number of fatalities to decide to post or not, and (b) we should only be promoting solid content. This article is 617 B of prose at the moment of my typing this. That's not the kind of article we should be showcasing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note, it's been four hours since I posted my oppose, and the article is still 617 bytes of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now been more than 24 hours since I opposed and the article is 839 bytes. Still not postable even if there was consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Contrary to the implication that this would have been posted had it taken place in the US or UK, no it wouldn't. Take a look through List of traffic collisions (2010–present) and you'll see that comparable incidents in the Anglosphere generally don't even have articles. (2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash is an exception, but that's probably owing to the major legal case still going on about it.) The closest recent equivalent, 2015 Karachi traffic accident, wasn't even suggested for ITN; Acayucan bus crash was suggested but overwhelmingly opposed. ‑ iridescent 18:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support iff improved - significant road accident with high death toll. But the article cannot be posted in its current condition. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per international covarage. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is just an isolated traffic accident with no deeper meaning, consequence, or connection. Thue (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Very tragic accident indeed. Still a lot of overemphasis in attempt to prove that media are interested in French local news. Coverage in the article is limited at best. And I don't give a damn about whether bus and lorry accidents are rare in France. Bus crashes are... newsworthy, but they do not reach to the Wikipedic standards of ITN, especially when nominations on past bus crashes (as said by someone else) resulted in "no consensus". Now as I realize, consensus are editors-in-chief (or editors in charge)... sorta. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support If an aeroplane accident killed 40 people, it would undoubtedly be posted. No-one has ever given a persuasive explanation of why an aeroplane accident that kills lots of people is far more notable than a road accident that kills the same number. Neljack (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because no one asked that question. Airplane accidents are rare, and car accidents are common. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And I really think we should reconsider posting every air accident, even the smaller ones. Some of them are just not that important. Thue (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A key thing to remember about accidents involving any type of public or large commercial transportation service (Airplanes, trains, and water-going vessels) is that these industries are generally highly regulated and any accident is going to be explored in depth by authorities and potentially many others. That draws attention to them and gives them some type of long-tail story if a number of deaths are involved. Traffic accidents like this will have some exploration by local authorities but there is nowhere close to the level of scrutiny that the larger accidents would get, hence why they tend to not be articles on WP much less ITN. --M ASEM (t) 13:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. But sometimes a 40-casulties air crash is just "low-standards third-world aircraft company doesn't follow good practice, makes obvious mistake", which isn't really that interesting. Thue (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed - just that I'd consider it a rule of thumb to consider the differences between commercial air/rail/sea transport accidents and traffic accidents, not a hard line as implied. --M ASEM (t) 14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think fatality count absolutely can be a factor in some cases, but the List of traffic collisions (2010–present) shows this is the fourth traffic accident to claim over 40 lives this year alone, and a quick survey of the list as a whole shows most such incidents don't even get articles, making it a safe bet they didn't get posted ITN either. Granted, this is an exceptionally large accident for France, and most such accidents take place in countries with considerably more dangerous roads, but I think that's a bit too fine of a line to draw for ITN purposes.  This is another case where my gut reaction was "of course it should get posted" but due diligence convinces me otherwise. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do not find this interesting. In fact, I'll go further to say that I think the article is worthy for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. It is just a simple traffic accident, nothing more. Banedon (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – While tragic for the numerous victims and their families, and widely carried Friday by Eng.-lang. media, the event lacks wider significance or ramifications, and will fade fast as a topic. Sca (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - tragic and high number of deaths. beyond the usual crash. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose from nominator. I nominated this in the hope that the article would be updated, which I don't have the time for. Since that didn't happen, I don't see the quality anywhere near main page status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Sweden school attack

 * Oppose Sad, but not an extraordinary occurrence among school attacks worldwide. Brandmeistertalk  15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weak support Per Brandmeister; a tragedy but not significant on the larger scale of things. --M ASEM (t) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Compared to American school mass killings I suppose?  "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history."  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As details of this become clearer, the reason this story is notable is the apparent motive (what looks to be strong anti-immigrant beliefs) and the method (the fact he used the Halloween time of year to disguise himself and enter the school with a bladed weapon). It's not the numbers though that makes this ITN. --M ASEM (t) 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This would not be an extraordinary occurrence in the United States. Let's be clear about that. The last time there was a school attack in Sweden was when Khrushchev was the leader of the Soviet Union.--WaltCip (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose – Small-event with very localized effects. Loss of life is sad, but aside from taking place in a school it's nothing different from any other daily homicide/double homicide that happen en masse across the globe. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Small event with very localized effect = swedish and not american.. when it happens in America is happens to the world, when it happens in Sweden it is "local". Just pointing it out.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. Umpqua Community College shooting got dismissed as "parochial". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it didn't; it got dismissed as not being unusual for the country in which it happened. I would have supported such a major event in Sweden.  Having said that, I am opposing this as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was dismissed as "business as usual" in America, where nothing changes every time children and teachers get murdered thanks to the amendment. Muboshgu, you have been informed countless times that mass murders occur on US soil daily, so why are complaining about this incredibly rare and unusual event?  How can you compare this to the daily slaughter of Americans through gun crime?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For me personally, it hearkens back to the Vietnam War when Walter Cronkite would close out every broadcast by announcing the number of Americans that had died fighting in Vietnam that day. Entirely different realm from this story.--WaltCip (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate the accusation of bias here in the least and suggest you refrain from doing so again in the future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Small incident, even by Scandinavian standards. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice save.. lol.. but not true though.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2011 Norway attacks. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, which was the worst atrocity since the Second World War. This is super-rare, just because the rest of the world has become accustomed to mass slaughter of teachers and children almost daily, you need to consider the context, e.g.  "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history.".... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I would be a hypocrite if I supported this after opposing pretty much all of the parade of US school murders. I'm actually surprised this is getting international coverage; I suspect this is due to the sensational nature (armed with a sword?). I understand this is a very rare event in most countries, let alone Sweden, but I am wary of allowing us to post any attack on a school that results in fatalities. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support extraordinarily rare event, unlike all the US mass shootings we see daily, this will have a long term impact as the authorities change things in light of what happened, unlike in the US where mass shootings and murders of teachers and children are now accepted as commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember that it wasn't a shooting here. It was a guy with a sword (he was shot during apprehension). It's crystal balling to assume this will have an impact. --M ASEM (t) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is crystal balling to assume it will not. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And the fact that it is not a shooting but stabbings are further evidence towards it being an unusual event in this part of the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand stabbings are not so rare in Sweden at lest this year. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's crystal balling either way. Presently, we have a case of this being a spot of violence that has left 3 people (including the attacker) dead. That on the larger scope of things is negligible when many many more people die from violence in areas like the Middle East each day. That could change (see Almighty Drill's comment about potentially a larger story here), but right now it's a story that happened. --M ASEM (t) 17:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Same here. Let's not overemphasize this as media have been doing lately. George Ho (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd point George: " "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." hardly over-emphasising stuff is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now – I created this article, and I see what people are saying for and against. However, there is circulation on the perpetrator which I won't go into here, but if true, would have a profound effect on this case's importance &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it sounds like you should go into it. Why be so nebulous?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsure why TAD is being coy about this, since it's appeared in at least one reliable source; there's an allegation (unconfirmed) that this was an attempted Breivik-style terrorist attack by a far-right extremist. I personally wouldn't consider that as having any effect either way on notability, unless he turns out to be part of a broader conspiracy. ‑ iridescent 18:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that comment, I had only seen Anonymous' doxing on Twitter. They could well have doxed an unrelated person. It is quite clear now that they had not &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Now support: Likely political motive and first attack on a Swedish school since JFK was in the White House. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Violent crime is not as common in Scandinavia as it is in many other places, but this is still far too low level of an event to warrant attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironic: "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." - if this was the case in the US, we'd be posting yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed ironic. When a similar thing happens in America it is of "world interest" when it happens in Sweden it is "a local story of little importance". How ironic :)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that TRM is pushing for a single isolated attack that as far as I can tell has no greater significance, while opposing any gun violence in the U.S. that demonstrates our inherent and ongoing gun problem, which is resulting in attempts at legislation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speculation on your part. You are not here to weigh this against an American gun violence issue. So, you can do better.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just trying to make sense of a perceived inconsistency. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that you make that claim. The US is completely blind to its internal problem of mass slaughter of children on a daily basis.  More advanced societies find this to be abhorrent, hence why this news item is so significant.  I'm sure I don't need to repeat the statement "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history" to make it clear how significant this is.  To cover all the mass murders in America, we'd need a ticker which would update more than once per day.  This is absolutely different, and important because of that difference.  If the Americans here think it's just "meh" then more fool them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mischaracterize the situation by saying we're "completely blind" to it. We're not. Gun control activists are at a weakened state while the National Rifle Association has demonstrated it has more power than we ever thought. This comment just shows me you don't understand the issue of gun violence in the U.S. And since it doesn't relate to this nom, I'm done on it. I already supported this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless VIPs were involved, I cannot recall any criminal violence being posted here with only two victims. On a side note I must ask, yet again, that people refrain from commentary that clearly violates WP:FORUM. This is and has been for some time an ongoing problem whenever these kinds of stories come up. I honestly don't care what anyone's views of American gun laws are. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL EDITORIALIZING. To all concerned, please stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but it is a place for some parts of the world to recognise that the murder of children in schools isn't a daily occurrence. Clearly this is a significant news story (otherwise why would it be headlining around the world?) and it's odd to try to suppress it simply because it doesn't meet some arbitrary death count, which is exceeded daily by mass murders in the US.  We're talking about an attack in a first world country who value the lives of their citizens and especially their children.  Your shouting is noted, but not required. If it helps you focus, I'll repeat:  "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." If you switch out Swedish for American, would you expect to post the new item?   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind this being posted but if you switch out Michigander or North Carolinian or Georgian (not the country) for Swedish would you still have supported their worst school attack? Nine and a half million live in Sweden and about ten million in each state. Sweden is awesome though, they go decades between school attacks, I'm jealous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we're talking about a country here that isn't America. Perhaps that's not clear.  It's not about the population, the proportions, the numbers, it's about the fact it's Sweden, and this stuff doesn't happen there ever.  Unlike the US where it happens every single day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Each and every story is unique and should be treated that way. This story shouldn't get preference because there's less violence in Sweden, likewise shootings in the U.S. shouldn't be dismissed just because there are so many of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's absurd, this story is fundamentally more important simply because it is so rare. Mass shootings in the US happen every day, attacks on schools in Sweden happen every other decade.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not political editorializing to say that school shootings at every level have become routine in the United States, because that is something that every person on both side of the political spectrum in the U.S., when pressed, will admit. There is just no comparison. America is letting their kids die on a near-monthly basis due in no small part to horrendously lax gun laws. This does not happen in any other developed country, and certainly not Scandinavia.--WaltCip (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I held off until now on deciding one way or the other. The possible motive of right-wing anti-immigration is sufficient for me to post, as opposed to a random attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "oppose", Muboshgu. "As opposed" would imply that you oppose posting this. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that I support "as opposed" to if this was a random attack, in which case I would oppose. But after reading some of the opposers below, I'll change to weak support. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WaltCip. It wouldn't definitely have been an extraordinary occurrence had this happened in the United States. Unfortunately, this happened in Sweden, a European country where many would surely not remember the last such school attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support in proportional terms with respect to population, attack more grave and tragic than Umpqua Community College shooting. Gizmocorot (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We should never use relative numbers based on country population to determine if something is more tragic than another event. (3 ppl in a 10M country like Sweden would then be equated to 300 ppl in a place like China, which seems far too high to determine if something is tragic or not). There are other reasons to consider the nation of the event, no question, but not number of people relative to the country. --M ASEM  (t) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, since it's "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history", even you Masem should be moved to agree with yourself and support this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Using superlative language like "deadliest" when only 2 innocents died is really pushing importance. (And arguably the previous one in 1961 had more wounded than this one, so that still is begging on the language issue). The fact that Sweden generally does not have such incidents, and now what is being reported as the motive and methods used in the killings, are the salient points, not the fact that this questionably the deadliest one. We particularly should not be using the anti-nationalistic "school shootings happen all the time in the US, we just ignore those" thought process. Case by case treatment is required. --M ASEM (t) 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Scale is definitely important, not necessarily 1:1 ratio, partially logarithmic.. with due weight to motive/type, past similar events.... Gizmocorot (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. What really matters is whether or not this is notable in Sweden, which it certainly is, and this is getting coverage worldwide from what I can see. The attack seems unusual additionally because it was with a sword(from what I read). 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Can't recall us ever posting an ITN incident with such a small death toll. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't recall us not posting "the deadliest attack on a school in [insert your country here] history." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no death toll requirement; each nomination is evaluated on its own merits.  We post some things with zero deaths and things with many deaths; we also do not post some events with zero deaths and with many deaths.  It all depends. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support deadliest school attack in Sweden. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The section is "In the News", not "What we think ought to be in the news", and whether right or wrong this is getting significantly more coverage—and not just in Sweden—than comparable incidents elsewhere. ‑ iridescent 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that we don't just mirror the news, otherwise we just might as well shut down ITN and replace it with an RSS feed from the BBC. We are selective based on the encyclopedic quality of the news story. Coverage is not always a strong indication of encyclopedic worthiness (such as would be the case for most celebrity news). --M ASEM (t) 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A double homicide of non-notable persons should rarely be in the section, I think, despite the yellow press' obsession with school related attacks akin to the missing white girl syndrome. The possible political motive can't be used as a supporative argument either given that the police has simply stated they will not comment at this point but will study it, at this point it is based on the tabloids checking Facebook and Youtube likes. --Pudeo' 21:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As discussed repeatedly here before, a double-homicide of non-notable individuals does not meet the importance criterion of ITN. I am not persuaded by logic that this is a "record" school attack in Sweden - there are records occurring every day that we don't post. Unconfirmed rumors of political motivations are also not persuasive. I do, however, offer condolences to the Swedish community in dealing with this loss. Us not posting this event does not diminish its tragic nature. Mamyles (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well said. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mamyles and others.  Calidum   22:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mamyles and Puedo, among others. Highly tragic but not an ITN-level subject, in my view. Jus da  fax   04:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as essentially a non-record. This guy killed a single person, which makes it the most deadly school attack in Sweden since year X.  If the guy had not killed anybody, but still harmed the others, it still would have been the most vicious school attack since year X.  Had he merely threatened the students, he still would have set a record for the most threatening school threat since year X.  The only facet of this that gives it any hope on ITN is the fact that it happened in Sweden.  In the Anglosphere, this would be non-notable.  If the Swedes want to post this, then let them post it on their version of ITN.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It makes it the deadliest school attack ever.  It absolutely is notable in the "Anglosphere", that's why it's all over English language news sites.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the deadliest school attack in Swedish history, not counting deaths due to war or civil upheaval. That's already quite a bit pigeonholing already.  I just checked the NYTimes, WashPost and Guardian.  This story is on the frontpage of Guardian, has a tiny snippet at the bottom of the page in the Times, and is not mentioned at all on the Post's frontpage.  That's a pretty mixed result for supposedly being "all over" the news.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, when it happens in America it is a World event story, when it happens in Sweden it is local. It is the way the world works sadly. Not only on Wikipedia. It is however strange that Wikipedians apply a "American standard" on a crime that happens in Sweden, the US is now used to these kind of school attacks but you can not apply the American standard to Sweden. I also suspect that several users here are from countries "used to violence" of this sort and are a bit numb. Just being real. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is almost as if, people who speak different languages take notice of events differently for some reason, and this is inexplicably reflected in the language-specific frontpages of Wikipedia.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Chelonoidis donfaustoi

 * Support truly a giant news, it is a type of stories which should be promoted on wikipedia front page. It's sad that we have no image. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - of course. important and interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I like turtles. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per BabbaQ. Banedon (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, although the article is a little short. Stephen 03:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Typhoon Koppu

 * Support Significant death toll and large number of displaced persons. Neljack (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Significant storm and human impact, article is well-sourced from the start. --M ASEM (t) 00:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  Prhdbt  [talk]  00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Well updated and although not unusual for the area, still worthy of mention to our Pacific readers. The next editor with a justified support should consider marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant weather event with widespread impact. Would mark as ready if I knew how. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Seong-Jin Cho wins the XVII International Chopin Piano Competition

 * Comment. Thanks for the nomination.  Part of determining the consensus to post this depends on its coverage in the news; can you provide some links to news stories about this event indicating it is 'in the news'? 331dot (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How many news items would be needed for this? Here are some of the English-language news items I've picked up so far:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * There also seem to be others in Polish, [https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dAxGwzfmkkZPbaMD5O8Om3VfaGjXM&q=seong+jin+cho&lr=English&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0CCcQqgIwAmoVChMIw6fI2MfSyAIVjgmOCh1BCgKp Spanish and German news websites, but I'm not well-versed in those languages to check the contents. There also appears to be a couple of news items in Korean, too. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose on article quality - The links above do show the competition appears notable but the articles needs more prose and the like to be a suitable ITN entry - just a list of competition results is not sufficient. I don't know how much can be added for that, however. --M ASEM (t) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like an important competition in the world of music. I believe the article is in adequate shape and decently sourced. Could it be expanded? Probably. But I am not seeing any issues that would bar linking it on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are only 103 words in the prose of the article, or about 600b of text. That is nowhere sufficient, even if sourced, for a front page item. We have rejected ITNRs that lack such prose (such as the recent US tennis Open). --M ASEM (t) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. |Haven't seen this in the press, and while the nom itself mentions the XVIIIth competition, the target article is the XVIIth competition.  I think that speaks volumes. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fairly confident that XVIII is a typo. A cursory reading of the XVII article clearly indicates it is the correct one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose both articles are way below the quality we want to see on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Like sports, this is not really important in a world history context. So IMO the only argument to post it would be if it was prominently covered in the news - which it is not. Thue (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality. While this does seem to be covered in the news, and seems a notable competition in an area not often covered here, as stated by others the article quality is just not there(mostly lacking in prose).  If that changed I would be willing to revisit my opinion, and either way I thank the nominator Tito Pao for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on importance, but this may be one of those cases where sources just aren't there to write an in depth article on either the competition or the performer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per TRM. Ping me when this meats the normal standards. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * siupport different topic and in RS media of note. (pending quality of course)Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Sir John Scott

 * I have not found any news coverage of Sir John's death (I do find it a bit surprising that it hasn't made the news here in New Zealand, so please say if I'm missing something). Some degree of news coverage is obviously a prerequisite for featuring on In the News. As for whether he was a very significant figure in his field, I don't think a knighthood and the presidency of the Royal Society of New Zealand establish that by themselves. I would want to see an explanation of the significance of his research before deciding whether he meets the threshold. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This fails on quality and RD Notability. I have seen this nowhere in the news, and the article is basically at stub level, with a one-sentence lead.  If it is greatly improved, ping me and I might say otherwise.  But at this point it is a no. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it looks like he did good research, there's no indication that he was at the top of his field.  Spencer T♦ C 07:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] Remove "2015 Southeast Asian haze" from ongoing?
Other than table updates, which is disputed and discussed at Talk:2015 Southeast Asian haze, I do not see any substantial prose updates within last five days about "2015 Southeast Asian haze". And I mean prose. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal. This has relatively mellowed out, and the article hasn't had substantial updates for days. Mamyles (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This has gone stale, time to pull it. Jus  da  fax   14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I really believe this hasn't been newsworthy for some weeks, so glad to see it being suggested for removal again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Of course I have no personal knowledge of this topic, but I noticed that Deutsche Welle's English-language TV news show today (Tues.) carried a segment on the Indonesia haze that said, among other things, that it remains severe and could continue for the rest of the year. Sca (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue in this case isn't whether or not news stories are still being written about the topic, except tangentially. The main issue is whether the highlighted Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with appropriate new material.  Directing readers to articles on "ongoing" stories which are not being updated with quality new information on said stories is not keeping in line with the stated mission of ITN. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So it remains severe and lasts all year, is that really something we need to persist on Wikipedia's Ongoing ticker? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * R U asking me to decide? I thought it was based on consensus. Sca (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not. Decision has already been made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Sca (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Swiss federal election, 2015

 * Ready the article is well updated, over 5.8kb since the 15th and meets the prose requirements. The overall outcom,e is clear, even if a few races are not yet called.  The English language press is probably a good 6-24 hours behind the Swiss media. I won't mark this ready yet, in case there's some odd factor that I am unaware of that someone wants to bring up.  But my opinion is an admin should feel free to post it now. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider waiting as the composition of the executive could change. (unique system that Switzerland has)Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The update consisted of one sentence to the lead, two about the migrant crisis and a results table. It could do with more campaign issues and/or, at the bare minimum, prose to the body about the result. Fuebaey (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given this is a new article, what is necessary is three paragraphs of prose with five sources. This isn't an old article.  The winning plurality is not in doubt. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about your definition of new, but I doubt an article first created back in February 2014 fits that bill. I'm going to oppose based on the quality issues I've outlined above. Fuebaey (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support clearly covers the major issues, sufficiently long, no major quality issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I added a bit to the lede, regarding Swiss voter concerns re: immigration as a driving force in the rightward shift. Still could use expansion in the "Results" section of the article, but it's ready to post per TRM. Jus  da  fax   14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 20:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This should say gains a record plurality given that is what our article says. That's a bit different from simply winning reelection. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That claim isn't currently cited in the article; I can update if this can be confirmed.  Spencer T♦ C 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the report at WP:ERRORS (which seems to duplicate this comment), the party won 11 more seats than the previous election.  Let's just keep some perspective and stick to reporting the absolute facts, and let our readers determine if such a feat is impressive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable event. major issue.BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Canadian federal election, 2015

 * The blurb should follow our usual form for parliamentary elections - "X, led by Y, wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election" - rather than saying so-and-so is elected PM. The proposed blurb would be particular misleading if - as seems very likely - no party wins an overall majority. Neljack (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. An alt blurb has been added. Thanks!  Aerospeed  (Talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Notable election. The early nomination has the advantage that when the result is known the blurb can be added quickly to the main page. It's good to have something quick on the main page so it looks that WP is verry up-to-date (and there were so less new items the last week.) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Polls close in, what, 19 hours? We might not know the result for about 24 hours. Why nominate so early? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Interesting candidates reinforce this obvious ITN choice. Sca (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is ITNR support on the merits is not necessary; being on the ITNR list presumes such support. Only a blurb needs discussion and article quality assessed once the election results are announced. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is support on the merits prohibited? Sca (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting support on the merits for an ITNR item contributes nothing to the discussion, since that has already been decided. One can certainly post whatever they wish if they want to put the effort into doing something that isn't needed. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has called the election as a Liberal majority government. According to their live tracker, the Liberals have the lead in 184 ridings, with 110 seats confirmed (170 seats needed for a majority). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Original blurb is misleading, as Canadians don't elect a Prime Minister, per se. That job usually just falls to the leader of the party with the most seats in the House. Canuck 89 (talk to me)  04:16, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * Added second alt blurb, which I support now that more than 170 ridings have been claimed by the Liberals. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb for accuracy in a parliamentary democracy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb is more compact. -- Callinus (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but what's the advantage of the phrase "absolute majority' over the word "majority"?79.76.126.240 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2, but echo the questioning of the need for the word "absolute". Citobun (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with a blurb like this - The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins a majority in the Canadian federal election by winning 184 of 338 seats in Parliament. -- Everyone Dies In the End  (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "absolute" in "absolute majority" is redundant. --LukeSurlt c 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - and suggest we post. Jus  da  fax   12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Yes. Agree that "absolute" is redundant, though. Time to post this – tops all the main Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Gamal El-Ghitani

 * Oppose on article quality. Unreferenced list of his books is entirely in transliterated Arabic. Only two different references for the whole article.  May well meet ITN:RD#2. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Smerdis on quality. The article hasn't even been updted for tense, given his passing.  It has an entirety of two (2) sources, and as stated, the bibliography is solely in transcibed arabic. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Guinean presidential election, 2015

 * Weak support not the greatest article I've ever seen but at least it's supported by decent referencing and clearly meets the criteria for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support There were some uncited quotes in the article that I found references for; looks good to go.  Spencer T♦ C 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Reasonable-looking article. Should be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose No, this is not a particularly important election result. We need to cut down on these auto-postings and post stuff that matters. Any putative significance of this election is the fact that the first freely elected president was reelected, in what is described as a fair election. Unless the blurb and the article states why this election is particularly significant as elections go we shouldnt even consider it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This election is included in WP:ITN/R, as as such has already satisfied the "importance" criterion to post. If you would like to change that, feel free to post on ITN/R's talk page. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize that ITN has absurd criteria for inclusion, and no I dont care to try and change those except by pointing out when they lead to absurd editorial decisions such as for example automaticall posting the reelection of a president of tiny country and the automatic exclusion of a significant act of politically motivated violence in a major nation that has not experienced this kind of event for decades.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Maunus, the Lukashenko re-election is about as much news as the fact that Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. But the problem is we'll end up with a stale or empty queue otherwise.  If there were a lot of good nominations, we could argue whether A should push Z off the front page.  At this point we're not looking at the prospect of still-fresh news being eliminated by a less important matter. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Being ITNR, even if the article is in good shape, is not a guarantee of posting if consensus thinks that on that specific recurring event, it really isn't as notable as other occurrences. This allows for easy-to-write-and-understand ITNR allowances that can be debated for the exceptional cases (as this one might be). --M ASEM (t) 01:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing else has been posted at ITN in the past five days; this is hardly crowding out "stuff that matters", but if you feel that other potential items are being overlooked, please nominate them here at WP:ITN/C. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 01:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good article shape for an election. --M ASEM (t) 00:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Howard Kendall

 * Oppose. The sourcing on this article seems very thin, absent in some sections - the statistics section relies on a sub-only service as a source, or no source at all. In addition - I am not seeing how he meets the bar, for notability or influence - the lead of the article does not do the job of outlining who he was, or what his influence was, aside from a few bullet points in his career, which started young. Challenger l (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on sourcing / article quality. In particular, the honours section is unreferenced. A two-time manager of the year and national hall of fame member would be arguable for RD. The "manager of the year" award for English football is a bit confusing - the article on this site about manager of the year awards only go back to 1992/93 (LMA Manager of the Year) or 1993/94 (Premier League Manager of the Season). This may have something to do with the restructure in English football around that time (the Premier League clubs broke away from the Football League in 1992). Biographies of various managers (Kendall, Bob Paisley, Bill Shankly) claim that they won "manager of the year" awards before then, but there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence (either in their articles or in other wiki pages). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on notability provided that the quality issues are resolved. Just about a support on notability - he was a notable player, famously youthful FA Cup finalist and a significant part of a championship-winning team, but never played at the highest level for England; his fame as a manager rests principally on his first spell at Everton where he a built a team which is one of the best seen in the English game in my living memory. On the point raised above, I think the manager of the year award at the time pretty much went to the league champions' manager regardless, so its probably not a key piece of supporting evidence. But he was certainly regarded as an important figure in the English game, so I'll support the nomination.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose a sad loss to the British game, and a truly great manager (probably Everton's finest ever) but not quite making it to RD level. We'd struggle to claim he was at the top of his field when we have contemporaries such as Ferguson and Wenger, and although being Everton's top manager, a couple of league titles, one European trophy and some other bits and pieces don't quite cut it.   Article also needs a lot of referencing work, should consensus be in favour of his notability.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose mainly based on sourcing. Clearly known to Everton fans and anybody who watched English football in the 1980s, and gone too soon, but he wasn't as groundbreaking and internationally known as Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho et al. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Henriette Reker stabbing

 * Oppose - There is already "European migrant crisis". And I doubt that, even with possibly mayoral changes, this would impact Germany's policies on migrants. George Ho (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Horribly sad, but not ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly minor acts of political violence occur daily all over the world. We can't put them all on ITN. IMHO this sort of thing should only be posted if a very high level official is the target. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As above, not ITN. And there's much more violence going on that we should cover first (if at all) before this one. --M ASEM (t) 02:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Mikhail Burtsev

 * Oppose Not on RD/importance merit, but I don't think this won't have a chance of being improved for RD posting. --M ASEM (t) 04:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you tripped on a double negative.  FWIW, I've expanded the article, but that pretty much exhausts the sources I've been able to find and understand. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The article is little more than a stub, but it is adequately sourced and the subject undoubtedly meets ITNDC #2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until article is expanded significantly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Seems questionable re DC2 due to passage of time. Sca (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How does the passage of time detract from the multiple medals he won? 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, but I think it makes it less likely that today he would be "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field." (But that's just a thought, hence a comment.) Sca (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; thanks 331dot (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, and as stated by Masem it seems unlikely to be improved, but if it is, I would support as a multiple medal winner. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI I put an ITN Nom tag on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose As most of the medals were won in team competitions.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once more than a stub: the notability, unlike Lugnuts, winning serious medals over a long timespan, regardless of team or otherwise, is notable. However, the article really is nothing more than a stub.  We can do better, and don't forget, we're supposed to be promoting "quality" to the main page here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality given the lead restates the body of the text, the article does not meet the three pros-paragraph minimum for new articles. If Russophile users or  or  want to update it, it may be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no time or interest. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kenneth D. Taylor

 * Support: Article should be brought up to code before posting, but a very notable figure in his field and an important player in world history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Practically a WP:BLP1e. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguably the hostage rescue was not a single "event" - as sources suggest, it took some time of planning with Taylor's help to figure out how to do it and enact it. Add that he was also an ambassador from one country to another, which is not something to sneeze at by itself (it's not a line for automatic notability/importance but it is a position that requires some degree of recognition) --M ASEM (t) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "ambassador from one country to another", do you know how many of those there are and how many there have been on planet Earth?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Roughly 200 squared at any current time. Which is why I said it wasn't an automatic pass at notability or importance, but it is an additional bit of merit that clearly doesn't make the person a BLP1E problem. --M ASEM (t) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not on an RD level. It's almost inconsequential.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alone, no, of course not. Just being an ambassador doesn't even assure meeting notability here. The reason this person's being nominated is because of his role in freeing the Iran hostages, major even of the late 20th century. The point about noting that he was an ambassador is that WP:BLP1E would not apply here even if you took the hostage crisis as a "single" event, because beyond being involved in that, he was also an ambassador. --M ASEM (t) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not at all, being an ambassador is hardly relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on article improvements: While there is an unsourced paragraph, it is about the history of the Iran hostage situation and is not controversial. That said, I feel this articles doesn't do a sufficient job at explaining Taylor's role in the rescue, and the fact there is more about Argo than the actual event is a weakness to this article. I recognize we have other articles that cover the rescue effort in full but more can definitely be brought into this one. --M ASEM  (t) 05:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose like Abductive, this appears that he's notable for just one event, indeed there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who have done similar things, who just don't get the publicity via Hollywood. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe he got the attention of Hollywood because his actions far exceed those of a typical diplomat? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it was just more Hollywood bullshit, like U-571. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as meeting DC2. A notable historic figure and important to his field(ambassadors). Article does need improvement as stated but not many ambassadors become notable in the way he did. Death being covered in many places. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support notable historic figure. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support An ambassadorship alone isn't RD material, but his role in the Iranian hostage crisis demonstrates his significant importance in his field of ambassadoring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There's very little about the person or his career. The lead and main body of the article is about the hostage event, but that section is mostly about the films, not the person, and reads like a movie review. And what's not about the films, includes contradictory statements such as "CIA organized the rescue" and "let Taylor take the credit for political purposes." But as a bio it's missing too much. --Light show (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What he did made no real difference at all. Suppose he hadn't been there: Then there would have been 58 hostages instead of 52. The course of history would not have been altered. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask the six people who got out if it made a real difference. Aside from the personal aspect, it greatly solidified US-Canada relations. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And harmed Canada–Iran relations. They didn't talk for years afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but either way, he was notable as an ambassador for his role. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Very very famous Canadian and significant figure in on of the most significant foreign relations crises of the later 20th century. The subject of several movies.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A very famous figure in the 1980s diplomacy. <b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b><b style="color:#010"></b> ( talk ) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What he did wasn't diplomacy. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Though the article might be ready, I doubt this has any real chance of being posted.--WaltCip (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the purpose of your comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why?--WaltCip (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it appears to add absolutely nothing to the decision-making process. While I'm used to this with you, I'd like you to explain to the rest of us why you would make such a comment.  Of course, you don't need to, that would be typical too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment while, unlike WaltCip, I believe this will just get the free pass, it's worth commenting on some of the above. I'm reading "very very famous", but that doesn't equate to anything encyclopedic.  I'm reading "field of ambassadoring", what is that?  So an ambassador was ambassadorial?  Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands have been ambassadorial.  Subject of movies?  Not true, included in movies about a very specific political issue.  Anyway, I'll put my hat, cat and mat on this being main page within 12 hours, so big dog deal, it's no longer important that this is English-language Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - While Geoffrey Howe did not do any real significance during his role as Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister (until his resignation in protest), Taylor did something more heroic. And it's just an honorable mention. His obituary won't become a blurb or anything like that, right? George Ho (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing? Intifada 3.0

 * Comment: Currently has an AFD.  Spencer T♦ C 23:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That AFD is going to close as the article has had a massive revamp since that was created (could be speedy close as we're notw working towards resolution). At any rate, its not going to end before the 7 days are up (if it does then we can close it)...I the interim we can discuss the merits of it and see if its worth posting to ITN when ready.Lihaas (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose until the AfD is resolved. Predictions as to how that will end are neither here nor there and I do not think the nom should have been reopened until that issue is settled. If the article survives then I will reexamine this proposal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor (such as this) and not-so-minor scuffles (e.g. Saudi bombing Yemen daily) are going on around the world on a day to day basis, we don't need to list them all, this one in particular seems trivial on the face of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose right now. Still seems like a relatively minor situation at the moment. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose while POV issues and AFD is on the target, and given the death toll in other middle east conflicts, it's a bad idea to list this target on the front page. -- Callinus (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mathieu Kérékou

 * Support Subject meets ITNDC. Article could use a little touching up but is not in bad shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. However he first came to power, he was a long-term national leader.  Article seems good enough to me but what do I know? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable leader. Beats out "Geoffrey Howe" to me. However, I'm checking its sources and fixing problems. George Ho (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources seem all right. George Ho (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Sourcing looks good for posting. --M ASEM (t) 02:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting head of state, unusual for relinquishing power after a coup, then returning after a popular vote, and a well-written article. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 Man Booker Prize

 * 2015 Man Booker Prize, which I believe is the article to be judged, has 431 bytes of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2014 Man Booker Prize was ITN last year, and it almost has the same amount of prose and referencing. I don't think this means this years is good to go, I think it needs improvement (a brief summary of what the award is, etc.) --M ASEM (t) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The mistakes of the past should not bind us to make equally bad mistakes in perpetuity. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree on that. There needs to be serious improvement on the 2015 Man Booker prize article before it can be posted. --M ASEM (t) 21:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article needs at least three full prose paragraphs to be posted, and is nowhere near that. Perhaps the item should be removed from ITN/R given the total lack of interest? μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] AB InBev and SABMiller

 * Support. Notable development in the beer industry. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As the op said there are regulatory issues. with nearly 50% of the industry's profits the monopoly regulatubions which are harder in Europe are a strong factor.Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Both major players in the beer industry. While the articles aren't in poor shape in terms of sourcing, I think a bit of help to clean them up and flesh out a few places where non-contentious statements are made to add additional sources (eg the international activities for each brewer) --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A big deal. The size of the acquisition is reason enough for me to support this. Banedon (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Not usually one for business stories but the figure is quite significant—that's a lot of money for watery beer. G RAPPLE   X  14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet another mere corporate consolidation. Some bottling plants will close, there will be buy-outs and early retirements.  They won't be bringing back Zima. We should feature mergers that promise some sort of innovative synergy, not just downsizing of middle management. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – This isn't just any old corporate merger, it's the world's two biggest megabuck purveyors of panther p---. Sca (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Though a merger would still never convince me to drink any of their swill.--WaltCip (talk)
 * Stella on tap is not bad if you're in Fosters on tap country...bloody rip off though ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - big merger. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support major deal – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing sufficient updates in both bold articles for this to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically that is a "support pending article improvements" !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. You aren't judging the merits of the story's newsworthiness. A flat "oppose" !vote makes no sense in this context.--WaltCip (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Now go and do something useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Something more useful than your strange "oppose" !vote? Sure. Will do.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Goodbye! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support when updated. Huge merger for the beverage industry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. If the Dell/EMC merger was posted then this should be too. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support major business deal. -Zanhe (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's just beer, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support US 104 billion is a big deal, both companies have well known brands all though the Anglophone world. -- Callinus (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support biggest beer deal ever according to CNN Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Why does Dell buying EMC get posted and this substantially bigger deal doesn't? Sca (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Insufficient update, apparently.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted numerous times in this forum, and in the rules, the purpose of ITN is to highlight quality Wikipedia content. If the articles in question don't have quality updates (or the articles themselves have major issues) then we don't post.  It has nothing to do with anything else.  That is the first, last, and only reason why this has not yet been posted, and will continue to be the first, last, and only reason why it will not be posted, up until someone fixes it.  If you want it posted, you're the person most responsible for fixing the problem, and then demonstrating to us it is fixed, so we know it's time to post.  "But MOM, Jimmy gets to stay up late tonight!  Why don't I get to stay up late!" doesn't really apply here as an argument type for posting.  That another article was posted has no relation to why this one has not been.  If you want this one posted, fix it and then let us know you fixed it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to condescend. I wasn't aware the article was substandard. Sca (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron, hopefully will now have more of a clue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully TRM will make his positions more clear.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already asked you to go and do something more useful than this, please consider that carefully and try improving something rather than just being a pest. P.S. If you don't understand " I'm not seeing sufficient updates in both bold articles for this to be posted." then there's no hope for you I'm afraid.  Go and pester someone else who cares about your odd opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This is literally a big deal. The state of the articles is a minor consideration because people will be reading them regardless.  What matters is the content which we have on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Articles have to be quality and their update has to be sufficient.  If you wish to ignore that, or propose a different set of criteria for ITN, please do so, but in the meantime you assertion is completely erroneous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of your view but do not share it. We should be encouraging readers to pitch in rather than giving them the false impression that our topics are always polished and presentable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please advocate a change to the criterion which states we should be promoting "quality" articles to the main page. Otherwise your vote(s) are in direct violation of the criteria, and are therefore pointless. Of course, you can stick to DYK if that's your approach, most of the stuff there is far from polished or presentable, seems a perfect playground for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IAR, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that we use common sense rather than formal rules. WP:NOTLAW tells us that policy follows actual practice.  The place to get changes made is therefore in the front line or coal face where the detailed decisions are made.  The key argument in this case is that, having just posted one big deal, it would be inconsistent not to post an even bigger deal.  The state of the various articles is a comparatively minor consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good, it's so easy to IAR. If you want to continue to advocate posting poor quality items to ITN then please address it correctly by raising an RFC against the extant criteria.  Or stick to DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like IAR, then you can take it up with Jimbo. In the meantime, the articles in question have been posted even though they still have ITN banner tags.  That's good enough for me so I'm moving on.  I now see another interesting item in the news and will indeed promote it via DYK which doesn't have this silly voting process.  Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for it!! That's a brilliant idea, keep focused on good old DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you quite through with your badgering, good sir? And apparently I'm the pest.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update – OK, added three grafs of detail re market shares, brands. Others are welcome to pitch in! Sca (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also CXd prospective U.S. market share. Sca (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Updates to the Anheuser Busch InBev article are sufficient, consensus to post on significance is clear. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

 * Oppose - This was already known information, and we don't "need" a disaster related event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not known, it was assumed. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is barely an important news with nothing outstanding revealed. Buk missiles are widely used in the part of the world where the aircraft was shot down and it still doesn't say too much on the perpetrators.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Support posting that the report was published but oppose posting a blurb that indicates to a single finding. It seems that there are other important findings than the country of origin of the missile, which is something already known and nothing outstanding for that part of the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This only formalizes what was already known; the report also make no finding of fault(which would likely be worth posting) 331dot (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - This basically is the formal report that everyone of authority had already assumed. It would have been different if the result was not this. --M ASEM (t) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support – Yeah, well it's topping most mainstream news sites Tuesday. Sca (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but mention the controversiy from the other side as notable and NPOV.Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The other side? Like the egregious destruction of a precious Russian missile, that was minding its own business in mid-air, by a reckless Malaysian Airlines pilot? G RAPPLE   X  09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to do that, per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support per Sca, this is news, unlike Playboy, and it was pretty bloody obvious that the nominator was joking when he mentioned the need for a disaster-related event at ITN, irony fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Nergaal (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless Malaysia declares war on Russia or at least something of consequence happens as a result of the report. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Important conclusion to an international investigation that has grabbed headlines worldwide. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Important report, with large impact. It implies that Russia is guilty. Worldwide in the news. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The report makes no finding of fault; it only says a Russian missile was responsible(which we already knew), and both sides in the conflict have such missiles. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The report seems to reveal other findings of, at least, equal significance as the country of origin of the missile (five key findings reported here). Shall we not post a blurb documenting that the final report was published with no indication to a specific finding if this gets consensus for posting?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the putative smoking gun. Have you noticed how the Russians are doing everything they can to discredit it? Sca (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but here we deal with news and facts. It's not our job to judge what the Russians or Ukrainians do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , please note that I said putative, not proven. Anyhow, to some extent it's ITN's job to reflect media coverage.
 * Alas, this story is another that's fast becoming a stale fish. Sca (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per Sca. Not a groundbreaking report, but it's getting a lot of coverage. Banedon (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per significant update on a very media covered plane crash/bombing. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, coverage was limited and faded quickly. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This airplane disaster was featured once due to media's overemphasis and ITN's commitment to be global. But Dutch report won't make the topic newsworthy anymore. Sad that the man researching AIDS met his demise, but the attack as a whole lost newsworthy luster over time. At least "On This Day" can make this encyclopedic. Either blurb doesn't help much. Also, if we post the main blurb, Russia would be scapegoated, and readers would jump to conclusions and be misled. Russian-made doesn't make Russia responsible. George Ho (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable report with a lot of media attention. MFriedman (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Playboy discontinues full nudity

 * Support Quite an unusual nomination, but I like it. Printed porn has been a huge industry, with Playboy being the standard-bearer. Playboy leaving print porn is the symbolic end of the industry. Thue (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable change by a forerunner of an industry. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Not earth-shattering, but interesting and unusual news from a well-known entity. I thought it was some sort of early April Fools joke at first. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I'll admit it is a curious change, at the end of the day this is a business story in fairly small industry, and as such this strikes me as not significant enough of a story to warrant inclusion at ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to our article porn is a $13 billion industry just in the US. Hardly a small industry. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Porn might be considered big business, but porn magazines are not. Porn mags are the least successful market segment of the current porn industry.  Playboy Enterprises total revenue was only $135 million (as of 2012) and only a few tens of millions of that came directly from Playboy the magazine.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Porn magazines were big business, which is kinda the point with Playboy's decision here. They are getting out of the industry they helped popularize and create. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They certainly did not help "create" the industry. That happened decades before.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Try centuries. Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Millennia G RAPPLE   X  15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but they were a big part of its recent history. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if this were of enough significance to post, which I don't feel that it is (Playboy was always a mix of pictures and articles anyway or so I hear; get back to me when Brazzers goes fully-clothed), this is a pretty premature story given that it's not due to happen for at least five months. G RAPPLE   X  11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume they have to wait to make the change due to contracts or the next five issues already being in the pipeline. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose a triviality, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The most well known brand in an industry(essentially creating it) having decided to get out of the industry is a triviality? If GM decided to stop making cars or Microsoft decided to stop making operating systems, would that be trivial? 331dot (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad examples, and as Grapple X notes, Playboy has always been more than just a bunch of pictures of naked girls, and this is an announcement, not the actual event. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you read it for the articles, huh? You and I both know this will not be news when the first non-nude issue is released; ITN is stacked against business stories(announcements are not posted because they are announcements but the actual event is almost always in the news less). 331dot (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry 331dot, but this isn't really that interesting at all. And may well not happen.  So I'm afraid I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Have it your way, and I seek no further reply from you if that is what you wish, but "not interesting" is a poor argument. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You linked to arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, not arguments to avoid at ITN. If an item is not interesting, and not actually happening, it shouldn't be considered for ITN.  Period.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A poor argument is a poor argument wherever it is made. Everything is not interesting to someone. Please provide sources which even just speculate this will not happen. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're entirely missing the point. If something is not interesting, not happening, not particularly newsworthy for a global encyclopedia, it shouldn't be at ITN.  Now please stop badgering the opposers, you've made your point, we've made ours.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not 'badgering' anyone; simply responding to poor arguments, as you do all the time. I am not forcing you to reply(and specifically state you didn't have to above); it is factually incorrect that this is "not happening"(again, please provide sources).  I don't think I'm the one missing the point. But to each their own. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop badgering me, and unless you have a crystal ball, I suggest you wait until this does happen, then we can go through this whole sorry saga one more time, once again declaring it to be trivial, of no real significance, of no real interest and of no long-term impact on anything anywhere. We all get it that you support it, you can now stop responding to each and every person who disagrees with you.   The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Interest" is a completely different animal for ITN than it is for the site as a whole. If we posted everything someone felt was "interesting" at ITN, we'd clog up the ticker every time Kate Middleton farted. A significant portion of why these nominations are discussed like this is gauge a consensus on what is merely interesting versus what is noteworthy. G RAPPLE   X  14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But by the same token, we shouldn't not post something because some find it "not interesting". Everything is not interesting to someone. If people want to argue this isn't a big industry, or some other actual argument, fine- but "not interesting" is a poor argument in and of itself, just as "interesting" is.  I just think we need to keep in mind what the actual purpose of ITN is here and this is one occasion where we are taking our eye off the ball. I appreciate your constructive comment. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough, 331dot, enough. It's my opinion that this is not of interest to a global encyclopedia's main page.  That's why we are allowed to give opinion here.  Now please, do something else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I will no longer reply to your comments on this matter, but you cannot tell me who I can and cannot reply to. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked you nicely about four times to stop badgering me. Now stop badgering me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Could an uninvolved admin please collapse this pointless badgering so we can focus on the topic in hand please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I consent to collapsing; If you don't like how I did it, you may do so as you wish. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop continuing this. Allow someone uninvolved to deal with it, as I asked.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait for march 2016 issue. Nothing has happend yet. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As with most business announcements, the announcement gets more attention than the actual event. This also seems unlikely to be reversed. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting trivia, but not ITN significant; what a business opts to do without pressure from others is rarely important. --M ASEM (t) 13:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Even if it's an iconic magazine it's not that big a magazine - based on its page for example the circulation isn't even one million. This is in contrast to companies like GM and Microsoft. There are close to a billion PCs in the world most of which run Microsoft operating systems, while GM not only makes almost 10 million cars a year, it's a company with market capitalization of $50 billion. I can understand the reasons for supporting (hence I only weakly oppose this) but Playboy is not comparable. Banedon (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this meets the bar for ITN, as a content change of a rather low-circulation magazine. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a significant change to a central cultural institution of the past 50 years. Also we need some variety - this should get points for not being either a catastrophe, and election or a sporting event.•maunus • snunɐɯ• 14:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – If Playboy started running nude pix of men, that would be news (of a sort). This is a snooze. Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They have Playgirl for that Brandmeistertalk  16:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – per historic significance and the fact that Playboy probably is one of the worlds most recognizable magazines.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But is this history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist?? Sca (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Of real significance, of real interest, and of long-term encyclopedic impact.--WaltCip (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Nudity is not mentioned as being part of its notability or stated anywhere in the lead. It's mentioned only once in the 3500-word article. Plus the blurb is too long. "Playboy announces plans to discontinue featuring full nudity" could be tightened to "Playboy surrenders..." to competitors and the less inhibited sources. Anyway, most of us only cared about the interviews.--Light show (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not that good (the lead mentions cartoonists it published but not a single celebrity to pose for it?), but Playboy really changed the porno game back in the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support Playboy was a game changer back in the day, so for the cultural impact of Playboy, and what it says about the prevalence of Internet porn, I'll lean support. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is just an announcement on what they'll change in their product. It's not as if they're gonna discontinue the magazine or something. 117.192.162.88 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's entertainment trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD "The Playboy Centerfold". Of course, we should have to wait for the last issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What fun. -- Callinus (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is not thaaaat important... Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Playboy's circulation has been going down for years, and they ran a disastrous strategy of allowing porn behemoth MindGeek run their online site until 2014. With Mindgeek sites making it nearly impossible to convince customers to pay for erotic images, Playboy is desperately trying to reinvent itself as a second rate male lifestyle/fashion brand. -- Callinus (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not much lasting impact in the field because of this change.  Spencer T♦ C 18:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment probably worth closing this now and moving onto something which is actually newsworthy and interesting to our global encyclopedia audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Dell acquires EMC

 * Support Dell is on the NASDAQ-100 and SNP 500, and is well known as a household brand across the Anglophone world.-- Callinus (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note, Dell is no longer on the NASDAQ or SNP 500. It went private not so long ago. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Dell maybe a household name but my issue is that EMC is not a company the mainstream public identify themselves with. Donnie Park (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. EMC may not be a household name (though I'd say they are), but this would be the largest acquisition of a tech company at history.  Calidum   12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's a deal worth $67 billion. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it is a major business deal and a lot of money involved, the relative obscurity of EMC (I had to look them up) and what type of impact will be rather low here; this is, for example, not like the AT&T/Direct TV merger that will readily affect millions of people immediately. --M ASEM (t) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, but your ignorance of EMC (a company Dell values at $67 billion, with a 'b') should not count as a reason to not feature this. Your not having heard of this company doesn't make its net worth any weaker, nor should it affect whether we feature the acquisition or not. Banedon (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even considering the nature of EMC's value and reputation, the net result here does not seem to be a major shift in the computer and technology sector - it is Dell making sure they remain important by having a strong computer storage company under their belt. The articles provided as sources both indicate that the importance of the deal is for Dell to stay relevant as cloud computing becomes more common. It is not going to affect most of the population otherwise. --M ASEM  (t) 14:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think your personal analysis is important in assessing this globally significant business deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, a 67-billion deal that's the largest tech company acquisition ever. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support major business deal is size and scope – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a major business deal involving two large companies in the computer field. 117.192.162.88 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support assuming we have a decent enough update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nepal PM

 * I think it should be considered ITN/R, but I have zero background on what's happening in Nepali politics, so I don't understand why there isn't an election article if Mr Oli was elected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I am reading, it looks like the President has the seat of power, the PM someone that is elected by the legislative branch (not a public election) to serve under the President. So that might not be equivalent to, say, PM for England. But someone with more expertise in this area should comment. --M ASEM  (t) 06:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the French system then, where there's a democratic president and an appointed prime minister; we would cover the election of Francois Hollande but not Manuel Valls. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up: The PM was elected popularly. This is unusual under the circumstance as the constituent assemtnbly was elected and the constitution just passed after about 3-4 years and hence this PM was ot popularly elected. He's not an "interim" PM presiding over the constitutional dsicussions for the first time since the end of the monarchy/civil war/constitutional convention. (as a note, the only Hindu country in the world now has a communist PM too which is notable a move away from religious grounding (India has been constitutionally secular since 1947))Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Our articles say he was elected by a parliamentary vote, not popular, which is why it is confusing. The President is definitely a public vote, but doesn't look like the PM is. --M ASEM (t) 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, he was elected this way but the position is same as a parliamentary system. THATS why I queried it.Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - important change of government leader, but article needs improvement. -Zanhe (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Enactment? Like a civil war battle? Constitutions are ratified or propagated.  They are not played out as military re-enactments. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences

 * Support – It's that time again. Article could be expanded. Sca (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR when ready... which it is not. Article require serious work, especially in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements - Needs better referencing overall. --M ASEM (t) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks all three of you, of course "support per ITNR" is pointless. Come back when you've updated the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose wording. It's not a Nobel Prize and it's not officially called that either. Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The term "Nobel Prize" is by far the most widely used in reliable sources and it is the term that most ordinary readers use. See WP:COMMONNAME. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It also is a Nobel Prize, and is awarded under the auspices of, and fully equal to the other prizes awarded by, the Nobel Foundation, at least according to their official website:  The only way it differs is chronologically (being created later than the other five) and in official name (largely due to the first difference).  Otherwise, however, it is not "unofficial" nor "lesser" nor "not a Nobel Prize".  It is officially, fully, and completely equally a Nobel Prize as much as Peace and Chemistry and all the rest.  The fact that the formulation of the official name is slightly different than the earlier created prizes is an inconsequential difference, and as reliable sources report it using the "Nobel Prize in Economics" formulation, we do that as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's either called "Nobel Prize in Economics" or "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". The former, as noted by Jayron, seems preferable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the latter is preferable, as the former is incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends if you use common name or not. Certainly the former is used by reliable sources.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of all the names in this nomination to raise an eyebrow I thought it would be another one. G RAPPLE   X  09:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure why this has been posted. The sourcing remains well below our usual standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing seems fine, but I have hidden what look like remarks about poverty that are actually remarks about wellbeing, which is referenced. In any case, I
 * Support the current posting as is. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I just now went through and removed and/or cn'ed, any uncited stuff. There really wasn't much.  There were 2 uncited paragraphs that were in the entire article.  One I removed as it was beyond rescue, the other I added a cn tag because it seems easily fixable.  Otherwise, I can't find anything which should keep it off the main page.  It's short, but not unreasonably so, and reasonably well sourced.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ach! See above. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Belarusian presidential election

 * Support head of state...no-brainerCas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose why we spam front page with countries where actually nothing has changed? --Jenda H. (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, because it's ITNR, and once it's been suitably updated, it will be posted. Are you suggesting we shouldn't run results of a US Presedential Election or a UK General Election if the incumbent was re-elected? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's more a case of not periodically posting that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead; your examples are of actual elections held in democracies. G RAPPLE   X  10:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right great wrongs, etc etc. If you want to include a list of non-democratically elected leaders over at ITNR to be excluded, then please feel free to do so.  And we all know about Chadgate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it'll get posted, I'm just explaining the sentiment. G RAPPLE   X  10:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood the sentiment, I wanted to know where Jenda H. draws the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are countries which didn't experienced governmental change since their independence 25 years ago, despite official election. So, the line is there. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. Yes, nothing has changed but other candidates were allowed to run for a presidential term, meaning that it wasn't completely certain what the outcome from this election would be. In case he were the only candidate in the election, it'd have made more sense to question the significance of such presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. If not for anything else I think it is good that we highlight dictatorships false elections.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally this should be posted but I am reaaaaly weary of bumping off Nobel laureates in exchange for such bogus elections. Nergaal (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per previous comments. Article might be a bit thin. (Nergaal: It's Chinatown.) – Sca (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits or "support per ITNR" is unnecessary and not required; ITNR presumes support on the merits. ITNR discussions are only for assessing quality and discussing a blurb.  Opposing on the merits or wanting to somehow limit election postings should be done at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when ready per ITNR. I had planned to call for a qualifier in the blurb, taking note of international criticism of a bogus election. However, to my intense surprise the report of the international observers was rather muted in its criticism. Not to say there was none, but they did not call this a farce, which I was honestly expecting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Richard F. Heck

 * Support I think there's a few paragraphs that could have a few more sources but they're far from controversial claims. But Nobel-winning person is definitely RD material. --M ASEM (t) 05:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Heck was clearly a notable chemist whose discovery presents a stepping point towards future research. He was also awarded with Nobel Prize in Chemistry.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly notable enough for mention at RD,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with a minor quibble – The first para under 'Palladium-catalyzed coupling reactions' section is unsourced. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 14:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply winning a Nobel Prize in and of itself has never been considered sufficient reason for posting at RD, and neither does "clearly notable enough for mention at RD" explain why the nominee actually is clearly notable enough for mention at RD. The Heck reaction is apparently quite important, but from reading our article on it, only the synthesis of Naproxen stands out as an example.  It would be helpful if we had some sort of mention of important compounds that can now be synthesized due to the Heck reaction.  Otherwise we are simply left with an article that says he won a prize for doing some thing in chemistry. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the Nobel is pretty much the only major broadly notable achievement in excellent in research in the chemical field, that's a pretty strong sign that Heck was important to the field. --M ASEM (t) 17:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not winning the Nobel, it's the work that won them the Nobel. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think anyone can question that a Nobel winner is important to their field. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If everybody who won a Nobel is unquestionable, then why isn't it in ITN/R? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue of does a Nobel mean an automatic listing at RD was discussed at length at the time of the death and posting (soon after RD was instituted in late 2012) of Rita Levi-Montalcini who was a Nobelist, but also accomplished on other fronts. The consensus was that a Nobel alone didn't merit posting at RD.
 * Of course I am not saying that a Nobel is unimportant, or that Heck is not important. But the problem is as I stated; at least Heck or Heck Reaction should make clear to the reader the actual concrete impact of his work.  Something like, the Heck Reaction made possible these classes of compounds, which include such important medicines as Naproxen, and several other examples.  In other words, if ""It's not winning the Nobel, it's the work that won them the Nobel", then what was the concrete result of that work?  At this point, we really aren't telling the readership much beyond he got the Nobel along with a few others for inventing some mysterious process with a very expensive metal. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - Medais had me good this time. Whilst a Nobel Prize winner is honorably mentioned, quality while improving is left to be desired. Also, we cannot know how much work he has done that earned him the Prize. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although at this point my oppose is really technical. With a real update of five sentences with three sources saying what his palladium process has actually made possible, my assumption is that I would support this.  When I took Organic Chem in the 80's he was not even mentioned, and we certainly never used palladium as a catalyst in lab.  But I was a bio and philosophy major.  So I am hoping we have a chemist who can give some lay-friendly information on what sorts of modern compounds we can attribute to his innovation.  I suspect Naproxen is just a toe dipped in the swimming pool. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Heck reaction is an intermediate - an important one but not a final one - in making complicated organic molecules, so we're primarily talking in areas of things like drug synthesis or the like. It is not like, say, the Haber process for making a commodity chemical like ammonia; it is a specialized reaction that is made for speciality chemicals so you're not likely going to find a good example.
 * What is important about it is that it allows for highly selective addition of one type of hydrocarbon to an existing one at a very specific site. Normally such additions are not very selective which means you have to spend extra time and resources to purify your end product. While Heck reactions are not 100% selective, they are tons better than alternatives, assuring a reasonable yield for a desired product, which helps to reduce costs of chemical processing at large scale. Very importantly where one can possibly make cis or trans products (which when you talk interactions with the human body can make a huge difference), the Heck mechanism favors trans over cis. --M ASEM (t) 05:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - The chemistry pioneered by him is absolutely crucial for modern organic chemistry. Fgf10 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Manorama (Tamil actress)

 * Support Absoultely "top of her field", meets the RD criteria.90.55.229.188 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Several BLP issues with the article, including quotes without citations. Once those are addressed, I'm inclined to support the nomination based on her notability as an actress and status as a world record-holder. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to support too, but Kudzu1 is right that it needs some work. I see a lot of the refs are YouTube videos. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Highly popular actress, but referencing issues need to be addressed before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my nomination – Looking at the enthusiasm (from IPs and newbies) I don't think I can improve the article; the article underwent a two-fold expansion over the last two days through unattributed quotes, personal analysis, fan POVs, etc., It's a shame that we couldn't get this to the main page. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Ankara bombings

 * Support High death toll and politically significant. This bombings can potentially lead to major developments just before the November elections. Also, the latest reports say more than 50 people have been killed by the bombs  -- Ե րևանցի  talk  12:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but wait Heavy variations in death toll and injuries at the moment, plus article is fast being developed. Maybe adjust the blurb as soon as an official death toll becomes clear (some say 30, some 47, some 52, some 57). Nub Cake (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, major event prior to important elections in Turkey.--Joseph (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, major unprecedented attack. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, major and significant. At least 86 people now known to have died. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Per Blackie. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, the article seems adequate, though obviously still being updated. Thue (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Landslide in Guatemala

 * Note – This event was already featured on ITN earlier in the week. It just got pushed off the ticker because of the flood of Nobel Prizes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Geoffrey Howe
Posted BencherliteTalk 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I supported Denis Healey, but that was because for much of the 1970s he was effectively co-PM owing to Harold Wilson's drinking and Alzheimer's. Howe wasn't in the same league; the important Chancellor of the Thatcher era was Nigel Lawson, while his time as Foreign Secretary included nothing memorable, given Thatcher's habit of going over his head and dealing with the important negotiations with Reagan, Gorbachev and the EEC/EC directly. ‑ iridescent 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. While for sure not as charismatic as Denis Healey, Howe's time as shadow-chancellor and then chancellor for Thatcher was nevertheless highly significant, in particular the outright rejection of Keynesian demand management which had been the economic orthodoxy in the UK since the 1940s. Howe was Thatcher's right hand in this, against the considerable protestations of more traditionally-minded elements in her party.  In particular, the decision in his 1981 budget to squeeze the economy hard even at the very lowest depths of recession, following two years of uncompromisingly high interest rates, has since been estimated to have added an extra 1 million to unemployment, over and beyond what would have achieved the falling inflation profile they were looking for.  Had it not been for the Falklands War, this would have been the defining feature of a one-term Thatcher premiership, and it is likely she would not have been re-elected in 1983.  Some of Lawson's later actions may have had more sparkle, but it was Howe's term as Chancellor that set the economic tone for the Thatcher administration -- a radical break with what had gone before.  Jheald (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Was a strategically significant person to Thatcher's government, but one that has not managed to keep his legacy in the public spotlight. It may have received a good amount of media attention, but he isn't important enough to be on RD unfortunately. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Not as significant as Healey, who was a borderline case anyway, per the comments above. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose No accomplishments that I see beyond being a Thatcher lieutenant. Not RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems a strange thing to put a tv chef on RD, or perhaps a bodyguard, ahead of a finance minister whose decisions had a real and direct effect on millions of people's lives -- and arguably still do, given the UK's stubbornly high rate of unemployment ever since. Jheald (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another case of a clear ignorance over the achievements of the person in question. Bring on the college basketball coaches.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The chef had impact in bringing his cuisine to popularity. The lackey was a lackey. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, when I said "ignorant" I thought I was being generous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dismissing Howe as a lackey fails to understand the history, or really even the UK political system. Thatcher's position before 1983 was far from secure -- she needed to keep her party following her.  Having a like-minded chancellor, who had been one of the major architects of the party's new economic agenda, was critical to her political stability in that period.  And it was very much Howe that was leading on the economic policy detail -- even Thatcher was surprised by how far his 1979 budget went.  "Very well, but on your head be it" was her response.  As well as huge shifts in taxation, the bonfire of economic controls in that budget, and in particular at a single stroke the complete abolition of exchange controls, was essentially the step that paved the path to today's globalised control-free neoliberal financial reality (especially when later taken up across the whole of Europe as part of the 1986 agreement for the single market, for which Howe, by then Foreign Secretary, was a lead UK negotiator).  Howe's style was very low-key, but he was no lackey.  Jheald (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, do you realise that the man you are describing as one of Thatcher's lackeys actually precipitated her demise as Prime Minister? Neljack (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read that. That's a RD-level accomplishment? The article didn't present any beyond that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Helping to bring down Thatcher has to be considered a major achievement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * She was already on her way down. Though I certainly would have applauded that speech at the time, that one speech is all that got this posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's really best remembered for his resignation speech, which helped bring about Thatcher's downfall. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Significance seems largely limited to UK politics. Sca (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which would be an acceptable reason to oppose a blurb (which has not been proposed here), but is irrelevant for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The criteria for RD is being top of one's field. While Howe never had the top job, dismissing him because of that is to seriously misunderstand UK politics. Chancellors of the exchequer have almost absolute control over the purse strings of the entire government and, as explained above far more eloquently than I could, Howe had a very significant impact during his time in the role. He absolutely was top of his field - and politics in the United Kingdom is no small field. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Reading the page, he seems important to UK politics in several ways. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - His resignation was part of British politics, but his role wasn't mostly foreign. His duty as "Deputy Prime Minister" lasted one year until resignation. I don't see his any other major accomplishments as "Deputy Prime Minister", but he would have been "Prime Minister" if Thatcher resigned beforehand or was brave enough to fight for poll taxes. George Ho (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Oppose for not necessarily being the top of his field, but "weak" because of decent article quality.  Spencer T♦ C 04:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I do agree that Howe does meet the standards for notability (awhile ago we posted a Lebanese singer who no one heard of) but the article needs more sourcing. Support' --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Andrew Rawnsley sums up Howe's importance best: "He was both the author of much of what became known as Thatcherism and the man who played the biggest part in bringing her down." If that doesn't make him someone who had a "significant impact" on Britain (per Death Criterion #2), then I don't know what is required. Neljack (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Unless there's a rule that only Prime Ministers are allowed on RD, then Howe surely qualifies. Thatcher's longest serving cabinet minister, held several extremely important roles - I find it hard to think of a more significant figure in British politics who wasn't PM. 146.198.45.110 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Very senior politician in UK for long period.  Endorse comments by Jheald, Thryduulf and Neljack.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Geoffrey Howe is credited as the man who brought down Margaret Thatcher, he has a substantial and lasting political legacy. Actually we should probably have a blurb noting the deaths, in the same week, of Howe and Denis Healey, two of the elder statesmen of British politics. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most important Tory politicians of the second half of the 20th century.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull - Telling from the arguments, I don't see consensus agreeing to post the guy's name to RD. And I haven't seen a rationale for posting his name. --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean you haven't seen any rationale other than all the comments above explaining how he meets two RD criteria (1 - he had a significant impact on the United Kingdom; 2 - he was at the top of his field) when only one is required? Have you actually read anything other than the bolded words? Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read them all. Supporters said that he was significant to UK politics due to his role as Secretary of State and short-lived Deputy Prime Minister and his resignation under protest against Thatcher, making him important. However, major statements are unsourced. I see other opposition saying that he is not on top of field or not important enough. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull There wasn't consensus for this to post, full paragraphs are unsourced, but Britopedia strikes again, I see. Ridiculous. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with this opinion. We seem to be heading towards a situation where anybody who holds one of the Great Offices of State in the UK (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Sec and Home Sec) is posted on RD - that's four people at any one time. Meanwhile, Speakers of the House in the US, which is arguably the second most powerful position (constitutionally third) are not being posted. That is totally out of whack when you consider the relative power of the US compared to UK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo, but the Brits run this place. 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Funniest thing I read all day, bring on the next college basketball coach! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - You know, I wasn't going to get involved in this, but the absolutely ludicrous arguments in some of the oppose votes made me change my mind. Ignorance is not a reason to oppose, but it seems like this is being forgotten on a regular basis. Also, some users, and I won't name names seem to have a personal vendetta against British RD nominations, which are pretty rare to start with anyway. Fgf10 (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes you determine that they have personal vendetta against UK politics? Did they argue the sources and article quality well, or did they trivially mention them without depth? George Ho (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * His accomplishments have been summed up as "a powerful PM was already on her way out and this guy gave a resignation speech that might or might not have had anything to do with her continuing downfall". And Speakers of the House, who dictate what bills become law in the U.S., is "parochial". Seriously. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm really surprised to see that twelve hours later, the orange tagged article is still up. Putting aside the BS about the consensus, this article is not front page quality and it's a joke that it was posted with so many unsourced paragraphs, and a bigger one that it hasn't been pulled yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled - I make no comment about importance or opposition consensus above, but even if you ignore the tags placed in the last day, there are several unsourced claims of importance that are not sourced at all, and needs better referencing. --M ASEM (t) 18:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: While Howe remains out of the RD line, Lucena should be restored. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --M ASEM (t) 18:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I assume you let Bencherlite know that you have decided to wheel war?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't wheel warring. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you have a doctrine to follow without thought once again; not interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever that means. But it's not wheel warring. I've helpfully linked that page for you in case you'd like to read it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, there are several pages about common sense and not being a dick, but I guess you're more than familiar with those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but if random outbursts of boorishness make you feel better about being wrong, who am I to judge? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw a statement that the article was full of CN tags and an orange tag, which Muboshgu placed on the page themselves. This arguably could be a valid tactic to pull an ITN they disagreed with, but in assuming good faith I reviewed the article before Muboshgu's CN/Orange tag edits, and it was in terrible shape, and that was a point that none of the above !votes really focused on; Muboshgu's concerns were legit. Items linked from the front page can't be in that bad of a shape, particularly BLP, so the one-time pull (and secondary followup to restore the last RD per Kudzu1) was reasonable. Jheald got it in shape, so that issue is resolved. --M ASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Re-post. Pulling this was a bad idea, both on the merits of the posting, and also because the nature of this page is that at some point we need to make decisions and stick with them. ITN is unlike almost every other page on wiki because the content is temporary by definition, so it doesn't make sense to have days of back-and-forth decision-changing on routine RD postings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting/pulling cycles based on anything beyond sourcing is an issue, that I agree with; sometimes we do post the wrong ITN thing and we need to live with that decision. But this was about sourcing pure and simple, it clearly failed BLP policy at the state it was pulled, and not in a manner that one or two inlines would fix. That's unacceptable for a front page item. --M ASEM  (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . I think I've dealt with all the cn tags now.  Nothing very controversial -- all found pretty unanimously in all the major obituaries. The Independent one might even have taken a look at our article before filing -- though now of course it'll look like the other way round :-)  So I hope that now clears that up. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the improvements in sourcing clear out the obvious problems that were there when I pulled. No reason to reconsider pulling on the sourcing aspect alone. --M ASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - He was certainly a highly influential politician and diplomat. We're making the threshold too high for politicians, and too low for sportspeople and entertainers who, no matter how well known, make far less impact on history and society than policymakers. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep pulled. This isn't a memorial page for British politicians.  Calidum  ' 04:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly assumed it was pulled out. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Jerry Parr

 * Weak oppose - I don't really see his actions that day as some extraordinary achievement. He reacted well, and he did his job, but Secret Service agents are largely a faceless, interchangeable group, and I suspect any number of them would have gotten the job done if they were in Parr's place. Heroism aside - and he certainly was a hero on that day - he was more of a minor figure within the larger event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that Parr was not just any agent. He rose through the ranks to become the head of both the Vice-Presidential and then the Presidential protection details. Before retiring he had gained the rank of Assistant Director of the Secret Service. I'm not sure what more one can do to be considered important in that field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems to meet DC2 as important to his field(policemen/SS agents).  331dot (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The dexterity of his reaction to help Ronald Reagan survive is perhaps a great act of humanity but definitely not sufficient to make him notable in his field as noted above. There are people in the world who saved hundreds or even thousands of lives and deserve much more credit than someone who used to save a single life. I've also noticed that the highest rank he achieved in his entire career was Assistant Director of Protective Research, which is relatively low in the hierarchy of the United States Secret Service. Finally, his obituary doesn't seem to appear on the front page of the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One action can make someone important, as his honors would seem to indicate. One does not have to be highly ranked to be important(many low-ranked people received a Medal of Honor, for example). Other things exist; if there are people who have saved hundreds of lives who meet the RD criteria, I await their nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Bongwarrior/Kiril - performing one heroic act is not necessarily enough to elevate one to top of their field. --M ASEM (t) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. He has many more honors than the typical person in his field. There is no requirement for front-page coverage in the RD criteria; what matters is if they meet the criteria. I'm not sure in what other way a person in his field could be posted. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Only notable for a single action. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parr did his job well that day, but shoving Reagan into a limo is really it for him, and that's not RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with 331dot's observation above. When you consider all of the professional bodyguards in the world, if being entrusted with command of the protection detail for the President of the United States, and then saving his life in an assassination attempt, does not make one important in that field, then what does? The implication of the oppose votes seems to be that they do not believe this field is one where it is possible to become important per ITNDC. And that is a proposition with which I very strongly disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He might have saved President Reagan's life, but that's all he seemed to do that was significant. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Peace Prize

 * Comment The article would benefit from some expansion, currently looks stubbish. Brandmeistertalk  10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stubbish is putting it kindly. Unpostable in its current state but no doubt it will improve. BencherliteTalk 10:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The alternative would be to bold-link the prize article instead, if the current subject remains too piddly to highlight. G RAPPLE   X  10:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also 2015 Nobel Peace Prize which currently has more content but still needs work. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have translated the background section from the French article and added it, so the article is now considerably longer. But I'm stuck on a reference tag error I can't locate. Can anyone who is watching this nomination help? Thanks. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Ha, never mind, someone found it while I was writing this. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Paul Prudhomme

 * Weak Support I am not really sure what the criteria is on which to judge a cook. But I am noting a lot of front page coverage of his passing and he did get into the Culinary Hall of Fame (standards?). The article looks to be in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Details from USA Today are convincing enough for me that Prudhomme warrants inclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I too was on the fence before I saw all the coverage his passing received. Article appears to be in pretty good shape.  Calidum   04:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article does a decent job of explaining his career and importance.  Spencer T♦ C 05:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Blatter suspended

 * Oppose, minor facet of a rather minor story though one with "fans". LjL (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just another chapter in a long-winded legal battle.--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; if he's fired/resigns, might be worth chucking up on the MP. Otherwise this is just part of the god awful mess that is FIFA. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat)
 * Oppose; if he is fired or is arrested, it would be notable, but this isn't. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Blatter is the president of FIFA, which is in turn one of the biggest sporting bodies in the world. Being suspended like this is a big deal. I would however consider linking to 2015 FIFA corruption case instead of to Blatter's page. Banedon (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's more interesting that Platini has been suspended. Blatter's just another step on the route to his eventual demise.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we posted his "resignation" in June. Now anything less than his resignation/removal/conviction isn't getting on ITN. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SNOW Oppose Not every step in this story is worth posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in literature

 * Support notable. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is ITN/R, so saying you support it as notable is pointless. Only comments discussing the specific blurb and article readiness are helpful. Thue (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair it was not labeled as ITNR when he made that comment. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not ITNR when I !voted. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is ITNR whether someone actually labels it or not. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on improvements. One paragraph specifically about some of her works, sales, and reception lack sources but this should be easy to fix. --M ASEM (t) 14:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Paragraph about works sourced with pre-prize ref. When improving the article, please steer clear of recent sources, they all cite the WP. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that para is still lacking sources discussing the themes of two of her books, but that itself should not be a problem if the Nobel prize writeup discusses those books to a degree. As both books appear to have originally been published in Russian, English sources are weak on it and we'll likely need some editors fluent in Russian to help otherwise find pre-Nobel source materials, which is why just to identify the themes of the books, post-Nobel sources can be used. --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Refs for all the books added now. Plus a bit more. All done with pre-prize sources and in English. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks all good to me now. And just a quick note: we don't require English-only sources, just that if we take from foreign language we should be reasonably sure of the translation, and if the claim is potentially contentious, should have an expert (eg not Google translate) help out. That's not the case here that I can see, but just a friendly reminder. --M ASEM (t) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly know about the language/source policy, I could have provided a heap of sources in Swedish (this being a Swedish prize an all), I was just being polite.15:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Per Masem.
 * , re English-language sources, NYT looks to be the most complete (800 words). (Oddly enough, Ukrainian and Russian WP articles appear to be quite brief.) Sca (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is a bit brief, but well referenced or at least seems so to me . - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: This story now appears in the ITN sections of the following WPs — F, D, I, CZ, N, PL, RU, UA.
 * (I know some users find the practices of other WPs irrelevant. I don't.) Sca (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Posting. Looks fine to me, the basics are there. Sure, there is always room for improvement. --Tone 16:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – The article says she's "a Belarusian ... prose writer," but from the Bibliography it appears she writes in Russian. Granted, the two are fairly closely related, but for clarity the blurb should either say she's a Belusian writer or a Russian-language writer from Belarus. (Also posted at Main Page errors). – Sca (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the blurbs for the other Nobel prizes on the Main Page, none of those have the nationality stated in the blurb, only the name is important, the rest is in the article(s). Keep blurbs as short as possible. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move to ongoing: Hurricane or storm complex?
Right now, combo blurb of "Hurricane Joaquin" and "October 2015 North American storm complex" are at the bottom of the window. The hurricane has been reported within last 24 hours. So is the storm complex. Move either one or both to ongoing ticker? --George Ho (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Joaquin has transitioned into an extratropical cyclone and its effects are diminishing; however, flooding from the storm complex remains a major issue in South Carolina. If anything, only the storm complex warrants being moved to ongoing but even then, the floods should subside within a few days and South Carolina will be in full recovery mode. Activity on the page is disappointingly limited as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Focusing only on the weather front, while it will still be a story for days because of the impact of the flooding; with similar natural disasters we don't keep those in ongoing, so I don't think we need to here. Unless we're talking something very long term (like the current haze), we shouldn't keep such in ongoing. --M ASEM (t) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Harry Gallatin

 * Oppose It seems like his career achievements are very unconvincing. He has never won the NBA Championship either as player or coach and hasn't ever been part of any national team of the United States that won a gold medal at the Olympics. The largest achievements of his career are apparently some trivial records of playing in the All-Star Game or having been selected as member of the All-NBA First Team or NBA Coach of the Year. As for his induction to the Basketball Hall of Fame, the article indicates that there are 345 persons who have become members since its inception, making it barely something extraordinary to achieve and thereby definitely not a decisive criterion for inclusion. Also, the news of his death doesn't seem to receive much attention even in the media in North America.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have to agree that being in the HoF of any sport doesn't add too much weight if other major achievements like Championships, outstanding career numbers, overwhelming individual records, etc are lacking. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't believe he meets the RD criteria. While an above average player, I don't think he was "very important" to his field.  As noted, Halls of Fame are not automatic tickets to RD; other things are needed. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally think a Hall of Fame induction should mean RD 99% of the time, since that's the ultimate determination of importance by the field itself. The Naismith Hall of Fame, in this case, not the SIU Edwardsville Athletic Hall of Fame. Then again, his accomplishments don't seem that big, his impact on the game seems negligable (as opposed to Moses Malone), and the AP story from his election in 1991, which I looked for to see what significance they attribute to him, gives him the last paragraph, and a weak one. Plus, I'm a Knicks fan and I've never heard of him until now. Sadly have to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose classic attempt via a "hall of fame" claim, but upon light analysis, an above-average basketball player. Of which there are thousands.  Not making the grade for me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Elena Lucena

 * Support Seems significant to Argentine cinema. Decently sourced month-old article - even though her career petered out 50+ years ago (woo for systemic bias). Kudos to SusunW for writing this up. Fuebaey (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support very significant in Argentine and that area of the worlds cinema history. sources are OK. good enough for RD,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable actress from Argentina. Well-sourced. Needs attraction soon. George Ho (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking to decide on posting this, I found "2011 Nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Dos hermanos" and similar material in the lead and body of the article - nominated for what series of awards? BencherliteTalk 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added name, Bencherlite, to replace "by whom". George Ho (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense now. Posting BencherliteTalk 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove 2015 Southeast Asian haze from ongoing?
Since we have 3 rather long items in ongoing at the moment, I wonder if we should keep this one. Looking at the article, the situation is better than it used to be 2 weeks ago, though still far from idea. Any comments from locals? --Tone 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal it's not really newsworthy right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal I don't think "the situation is better". It continues to be on the news. For example, just news from the past 24 hours: Al Jazeera BBC Bloomberg The Guardian Jakarta Globe Bangkok Post The Straits Times HaEr48 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per HaEr48. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was still going strong a few days ago, with coverage in BBC, SMH and ABC News - including 7,000 school closures, the cancellation of the Kuala Lumpur Marathon and half the events at the 2015 FINA Swimming World Cup meet. The haze now seems to be spreading north, to southern Thailand and Vietnam. Fuebaey (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent It may still be in the news, and it may still be hazy, but there really isn't that much "news". One can almost guess what the headlines will be tomorrow: some combination of Malaysia and Singapore complaining about the forest fires, Indonesia saying certain things that don't actually mean anything since the forest fires are still happening, countries discussing whether they should offer aid to fight the fires, and so on. The haze may be omnipresent for the (millions of) people affected, but for the international community I don't see much potential for interesting new developments. The news stories can almost write themselves. Keep the entry for now, but first candidate to replace should a better ongoing event happen. Banedon (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize for Chemistry

 * Comment Here we go again... atl blurb provided per this diff. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  11:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad. I went ahead and swapped out the blurb I have with the one agreed upon by consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support ITNR. Articles are a bit on the short side, but well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR. Well sourced and overall ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with same caveat as the previous days - they are on the short side but the Nobel prize will likely draw attention to them. --M ASEM (t) 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't this been posted yet, but the more recent Literature prize has been updated ? 146.198.166.182 (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Articles are well referenced. --Logom (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Move "Russian intervention on Syria" to ongoing?
Right now "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" is at the bottom (currently) pushed out of the ITN window. There have been updates. Move Reinsert it to "ongoing" ticker? --George Ho (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as it's clearly an ongoing event with series of news published on a daily basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Russian warships just launched rockets into Syria. This is serious.--WaltCip (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A solid candidate for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense as stated above. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Why is it "Russian intervention in Syria" that is ongoing instead of Syrian Civil War? The Russian intervention is but the latest twist in this ongoing event. Banedon (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

HKU pro-vice-chancellor selection controversy

 * Oppose Signing it with "alleged" did it for me (hint: not neutral). The original event is stale - his appointment was rejected at the end of September - and looks like your standard political manoeuvring. I wouldn't consider the reaction, i.e. the small-scale walkouts (1-2,000; HKU has over 30,000 students and faculty members), to be significant enough for ITN. No prejudice against renomination if this does end up like last year's protests. Fuebaey (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I used the word "alleged" because I figured that was the most NPOV way to put it. But I and others have included a multitude of reliable international sources that conclude that this whole affair represents government meddling in academic freedom. Numerous leading international scholars have also affirmed this (as outlined in the article). The news isn't stale, the protests are ongoing. I don't oppose an alt blurb, but there is no problem with WP:ALLEGED here – the allegations are widespread, come from countless reliable international sources, and the article is very well-cited in this regard.
 * "Standard political manoeuvring" – HKU is one of the world's top-ranked universities. How is this "standard"? It is certainly unprecedented in Hong Kong. Can you name a similar case to this at another well-regarded school in the developed world?
 * You consider the size of the protests a criterion for whether or not this is notable enough for ITN – but also consider the news stale because the vote itself happened a week ago. This is kind of a catch-22 because the protests are ongoing. This remains huge news locally and has received continuing widespread international coverage - the Time Magazine piece was only published yesterday. The Wall Street Journal piece was published mere hours ago. Citobun (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Political nominations tend to get a hard time here at ITN. From an uninformed perspective: the blurb mentions protests, the news sources detail someone failing to gain an administrative post and the nom comment goes on about politics. We don't judge significance solely on how many column inches a story takes up, else we'd be seeing quite a bit of gossip/sport/trivia on ITN. The only thing we can look at here is the impact of the original event (rejection), of which there appears to be little (speculation and walkouts). Like I said earlier, if those protests grow and start being widely disruptive - think of the Arab Spring, we didn't cover the catalyst but we did the aftermath - I'd reconsider my !vote. Fuebaey (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The significance of this news is that it represents a significant milestone in Beijing's accelerating curtailment of freedoms in Hong Kong, contrary to the autonomy afforded to the territory under the agreement between the Chinese and the British prior to the handover of sovereignty in 1997. The protests are just the "hook" and not really the meaningful impact of this event. The impact is continuously deteriorating freedom in Hong Kong – a trend that is unique and significant among the world's top developed economies and thus has international implications. Authoritarian interference in democratic development (the spark that ignited the 2014 Hong Kong protests) and in local media has been well-established, but academic freedom has been hitherto mostly untouched – until this watershed event.
 * I believe that the other oppose votes (not yours) are being disingenuous in dismissing this event as some kind of minor school dispute, possibly for political reasons. Important news relating to Hong Kong's decline, which may reflect badly on China, tends to be voted down here by the same users with intense interest in China while other users from places like the U.S. avoid chiming for fear of not being informed enough. The net effect is that important news relating to Hong Kong's decline is censored from ITN – the exact same thing happened with the ITN nomination for the voting down of the Hong Kong government's electoral reform package and the same users were involved.
 * The Sino-British Joint Declaration that ultimately was meant to (in part) ensure academic freedom in Hong Kong was registered with the United Nations. Hong Kong is a leading economy due to the freedoms in the city that are not available in Mainland China. To reiterate: this has international impact as part of a greater curtailing of freedoms and it is totally absurd for certain users here to dismiss this as nothing more than a local university squabble. Citobun (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The machinery of the Government of China making an unprecedented and decisive move against arguably the last bastion of "two systems". An alt blurb would be good. zzz (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note – I added an alt blurb. Edit: I have removed entirely the word "alleged" which an editor had a problem with. Many reliable sources, including a Wall Street Journal article published today, describe in very certain terms the rejection of Chan as "revenge against pro-democracy voices". Citobun (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Controversy about vice-chancellor of a university? Not ITN stuff. We don't even post anything about subnational heads of government. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue very obviously holds serious ramifications that extend beyond the university. I know we're not meant to throw around COI accusations here but I feel you are either being purposefully disingenuous because this reflects badly on the Chinese government – or didn't actually read the article! The issue has been covered by every reputable international news outlet in recent days – what does that tell you? To dismiss this as a minor flap at a local university is absurd and seriously misleading. Unfortunately, it seems that people simply glance over these nominations and won't consider a story with "oppose" votes even if the rationale for the votes is total nonsense. Citobun (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's being very widely reported, not surprisingly. zzz (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FIFA's suspension of Sepp Blatter has been much more widely reported, but the ITN nomination was summarily rejected. -Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if the highest reputable university of the US would follow the same fate as the University of HK, I don't think that would have been newsworthy unless foreign involvement is part of it. Anyway, if not for the manipulations in the name of "one country, two systems", this would not have been nominated. As bad as Chinese politics is, emphasizing about the appointments of a vice-chancellor would be media's dirty doing. ITN already has overly emphasized less impactful stories posted recently, but many (including Kim Davis controversy and Umpqua Community College shooting) have become a collection of rejects this year. Let's add this to a collection of rejects then. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, and I have no connection of any kind with China, Hong Kong, or anyone else to whom the OP is accusing the opposers of being connected. Yes, I get that it marks political interference in educational affairs is controversial, but it still doesn't make it ITN-worthy unless something more comes of it (mass protests, an academic boycott, etc). As a direct analogy, when the British government directly overruled Parliament with the appointment of Les Ebdon to OFFA, we wouldn't have dreamed of putting it on ITN. I can see grounds for including this to counter the general systemic bias against Chinese stories featuring in ITN, but I really don't think this is strong enough to justify posting, since ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news, not that we think ought to be in the news, and outside the local news in Hong Kong this has made no impact at all as far as I can tell. ‑ iridescent 09:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the independent input. However, I don't think the UK analogy is appropriate because the UK is not in the same unique position as HK, i.e. being semi-autonomous within an unfree single-party state. This incident validates a fear of the past 30 years – that China would not respect the spirit of one country, two systems. This is the same fear that has continually diminished Hong Kong's competitiveness and sent waves of Hong Kong people migrating to other countries. This particular incident also sends a message to all academics at all Hong Kong institutions: stay in line or risk jeopardising your future. There is no more academic freedom. Hence I don't think the UK example holds the same gravity and significance. I also doubt pro-government media conducted a concerted smear campaign against whomever Ebdon was up against.
 * As for the statement "ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news, not that we think ought to be in the news" – I did post many examples of international coverage above. The Forbes piece was just published yesterday and a new wave of stories (i.e. Reuters) is beginning to come out as another rally took place at the school tonight. Of course in terms of quantity most coverage comes from local media, but the incident has also been covered repeatedly by all major international media outlets. Citobun (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Sadly, this won't get any support because it's not in the UK or USA. If the head of a Cambridge or Oxford or Ivy League university got kicked out by the UK or US government for political reasons, it would stand a far greater chance of getting posted, despite the fact that this is a far bigger deal, as explained in all the international media coverage. zzz (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. ITN has been dominated by Nobel Prize award winners all week in a celebration of academic achievement. I would argue that the blatant suppression of academic freedom in one of the world's top global cities is equally or more newsworthy and has more serious ramifications. Citobun (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The depth and quality of the article pushes this to a "support" from me.  Spencer T♦ C 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Blurb doesn't articulate why this is big news. Student protests happen all the time in many countries, and Hong Kong has been a hotbed of student protests in recent years. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability of events like bombings and Nobel Prize awards is immediately evident to most people. But to recognize the newsworthiness of this HKU controversy requires a little more prior knowledge of Hong Kong's unique political position. It may sound trivial to some overseas readers at first glance. But I don't think that's a valid reason to reject this nomination, particularly when the story has been picked up by major international media and subject to editorials in Forbes and Wall Street Journal.
 * "News worthiness immediately apparent to all" is not a criterion for inclusion in ITN. I have explained the significance of this event elsewhere in this discussion and it should also be made apparent by reading the article and the multitude of stories published by international media. But if you can suggest an alternate blurb that is more than welcome.
 * That Hong Kong has been a hotbed of protests in recent years also does not diminish the significance of this event. There were numerous Nobel Award winners this year and they all got posted. This controversy should similarly be judged on its individual merit, not ditched just because Hong Kong students also protested last year over something else. Plus, as I mentioned, the protests are simply the "hook" in this case – they are just a small part of the bigger picture. Citobun (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles

 * Weak oppose. From the Guardian source quoted above, Tech giants such as Facebook, Apple and Google have long planned for a loss and are likely to fall back on their own user agreements to allow them to transmit data overseas or use their own legal status within Europe to circumnavigate the ruling—that is, although this is potentially going to have significant behind-the-curtain impact on some companies as to where their servers are based and how they process the data used to serve up ads, it's not something that the average web user will even notice other than that their Adsense ads may become a little less personalised. We didn't post it when Russia introduced an even stricter version of the same measures, albeit because an EU judgement covers the UK and Ireland it will be more noticeable to en-wiki readers. ‑ iridescent 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. The subject seems ITN worthy however as far as I can tell there is only a single sentence on the subject in the target article, which is also very poorly sourced. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Árpád Göncz

 * Conditional support – Article needs improved sourcing as the orange tag of doom implies. Once that's resolved it should be good to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose on article quality. It is almost entirely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when ready. Major improvements have been made and more appear to be in progress. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now: Clearly an influential figure, but the majority of the article is unsourced &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose for now on quality . – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ad Orientem that major improvements have happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major figure of modern Hungarian politics, perhaps the most known modern Hungarian statesman, internationally.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major figure in Hungarian politics. First democratically elected president. Article is in good enough shape and more progress is being made. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While improvement has been dramatic, there are still a few too many gaps in sourcing to post this. But we are getting closer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article now appears to be fully referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize for Physics 2015
<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support Neutrino oscillation currently doesn't seem to mention Kajita and McDonald. Kajita's article also has one orange tag, will support once these are fixed. Brandmeistertalk  11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To some extent, that's because they're not actually that important to the theory itself. Kajita and McDonald led the teams that operated neutrino detectors (atmospheric neutrino research at Super-Kamiokande and solar neutrino research at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory respectively) which proved oscillation happened, but they didn't invent the idea of neutrino oscillation or develop the theory. It's a bit like if the Higgs Nobel had been given to the leaders of the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN – the prize would make sense, but there would be no reason to mention the people on the Higgs Boson page. Smurrayinchester 11:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that should be clarified a bit in neutrino oscillation, as blurb implies that they were the discoverers. There were previous instances when Physics Nobels were awarded to direct discoverers. Brandmeistertalk  13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Neutrino oscillation mentions SuperK and SNO, which are the projects lead by these co-recipients of the 2015 Nobel prize in physics. Neutrino oscillations had been proposed previously, but were proved to exist by these experiments.  This is a very important scientific result, with a significant impact in the science world.  Boardhead (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on one article improvement - Kajita's article has all of two sources, one being about the Nobel. Like the medicine issue yesterday, it should be expanded a bit more before posting. McDonald's is in good shape. --M ASEM  (t) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I expanded Kajita's article with the flood of sources that came out with the Nobel win, but there's very little on his previous work. If it's others think it's sufficient, than it can be posted. Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please tweak the blurb. As I wrote in the ITN candidacy for the medicine prize: You never "win" a Nobel Prize, it is awarded to you for an achievement. (Would anyone ever say that someone "won" a Purple Heart?) It's not an international lottery. And the prize is "awarded jointly to...". <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Article quality is certainly an issue. I can see three options:
 * Improve the articles on the winners. Unfortunately that may be hard to do, as neither attracted much attention before they won the prize. Edit: actually they're now better than when I looked yesterday - start class anyway. Seems borderline.
 * Add a paragraph to Neutrino oscillation detailing the measurements made by these teams and the subsequent Nobel
 * Update Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory to reflect the Nobel win
 * Added altblurb to your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support ITNR, and articles are decent. Please post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove "European migrant crisis" from ongoing?
<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.

Looking at history logs of European migrant crisis, there hasn't been newer key events related to this crisis. There are future schedules this month, but it is nothing that big. The crisis is still ongoing, but reports have steadily declined. We can re-propose this to become part of the ticker again when key events will occur. --George Ho (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this remain in Ongoing remain a few more days, until article activity has slowed. From looking at the article history, there have been some rather large updates over the past three days. While widespread media reports have slowed in number, there are still a few new sources being used. Mamyles (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I searched "October" in the article. Nothing new except scheduled meetings and data. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I continue to see news articles that are related to the crisis. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose very much still ongoing and the article is receiving attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose still in the news (possible deal with Turkey discussed yesterday; numbers increased; protests and support in the Netherlands). L.tak (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still the most major news topic in Germany as well, with right wing demonstrations gaining support over the last couple of days... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 6 October 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 Chantal Akerman

 * Oppose based on at least article quality, which references Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Trans-Pacific Partnership

 * Weak Oppose The treaty goes to the respective gov'ts to ratify and it is fully expected in the States to have strong opposition. This does not make it a done deal and thus a thing to wait on. --M ASEM  (t) 06:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is opposition to it in the U.S. from the left (Bernie Sanders) and the right (tea party nihilists who try to stop Obama from accomplishing anything) but it isn't likely to prevent the deal, much like Obama has been able to get the Iran treaty through. I'd say if the U.S. (or any other country) kills it despite this announcement, that would be a separate postable story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when ready. The treaty is hugely significant and is likely to be ratified by most of the signatory states irrespective of what the US does. Article quality is decent though it could stand some improvement in sourcing and one section has been tagged for expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The referencing has been improved a little now. Nurg (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The fact that there will be significant opposition to the agreement in some of the countries involved does not diminish its notability - in some ways, the fact there will be vigorous political debate about it increases the case for featuring it on ITN. Neljack (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * support of course there are many occasions when this is notable (signing in 2016, entry into force), the this is probably the most significant news event as agreement is reached... L.tak (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until it's ratified. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ratified by which country? HaEr48 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This deal is major. Opposition to it is fairly major too. It's a major story. Major. Post when there are no problems on the article, no need to wait for "ratification" or the agreement to take effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Big story and ITN-worthy. At first glance the article is solid, though I see a request for expansion tag on one section. Jus  da  fax   21:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the gif! I don't think I've seen a gif in the ITN section before. Dismas |(talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Grace Lee Boggs

 * Why?--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The article needs more inline citations and doesn't have a source for her death, and doesn't explain which of her several fields (social activism, feminism, philospher, author) she was top of. The closest I can see is "She founded Detroit Summer, a multicultural intergenerational youth program, in 1992 and has also been the recipient of numerous awards." which is unsourced and not specific about which awards they are so I can't see how prestigious they are or are not. If the nominator or anyone else can explain why she meets the RD criteria then I'll reconsider, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Problems with the nomination aside, I'll support upon some final article improvements. Influence in a number of fields and a pretty good article sway my !vote in favor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I am not seeing where Ms.Boggs meets the standards for RD. In what way was she very important or influential in her field? Beyond which the article is in poor shape with glaring deficiencies in sourcing. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Walt and AO. No rationale given, no awards, pretty run-of-the-mill academic. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I saw her obits come up on my social media accounts, but can't quite put my finger on enough to say she was truly that important in the field, or at least considered that before her death. I want to support, but I haven't been given a good enough reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Henning Mankell

 * Support given his recognition and body of work, he seems to be important to his field. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support, granted, he is big in Sweden and maybe in Germany, but is he really notable enough in the rest of the world? <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Being notable to the entire world is not one of the RD criteria; the relevant one here is that they need to be very important to their field. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I have to say that there is nothing plausible here to make me think he was notable in whatever field. The prizes he was awarded with have earned him a recognition to a very limited area of readership, while he doesn't appear to have won any major literary prize such as the Man Booker Prize or the Goethe Prize. The creation of Kurt Wallander, albeit more notable, didn't bring him exceptional international acclamation either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Source needed Neither this nom or article has one on the death. --M ASEM (t) 11:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to the BBC's article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Death has been sourced know. He was widely known in Europe (very popular in the UK and Netherlands as well), not just Sweden, and his works have been adapted into successful TV series in multiple languages. Also known for political activism. Nobility is more than clear enough I would say. Fgf10 (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Was unaware of this writer but his death is getting a lot of news space, including the top article on the NYT website as of this posting. Clearly an international force. Jus  da  fax   13:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Quite an amazing and exceptional individual, really, with a global influence that extends beyond his books.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - His Wallander books has been successful in Europe and the Wallander series has also becomed a television series both in Sweden and the UK.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

 * Drive-by comment I don't think William C. Campbell links where you think it does. ‑ iridescent 09:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that. I've moved the golfer to his full name. Perhaps the Nobel laureate does not yet have an article (the other two have been created only today as well). --Tone 09:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the articles currently describe the discoveries which they won the Prize for, except in the most vague general term like "for his research on therapies against infections caused by roundworm parasites". While I personally think that the front page would be better with than without the news item even in this state, a better description in the articles would be much appreciated. Thue (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support but biografies nedds an improvements. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Do we / can we somehow make it clear that the prized wasn't equally shared? Half of the prize was won for "Malaria" by Tu solely, and the other half for "roundworm parasites" which was spilt between Campbell and Ōmura. -- KTC (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The prize money is split like that but nobody else cares. You either get a Nobel Prize or you don't. The diseases could be mentioned but the prize fractions shouldn't be in a brief blurb. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarify You never "win" a Nobel Prize, it is awarded to you. It's not an international lottery. Plus second PrimeHunter's comment. The prize is "awarded jointly to...". <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "awarded with one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura ... and the other half to Youyou Tu". -- KTC (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Ok so the articles are not in the best of shapes but this is really notable events and subjects so I say post.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with one article improvement Tu's article has a few unsourced points (Family section and one para about malaria) that need to be sourced per BLP. Others could use improvement but they aren't in bad shape for posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose two of the three articles need work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support articles look much better now. They are ready to be shown to the general public I think, after some work was done. Swordman97  talk to me  03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. First ever scientific Nobel Prize to China. --Bruzaholm (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Admittedly two of the three articles are still pretty weak (in part because they were created yesterday), but given that this is ITNR and enough had been done that none of the articles are terrible I decided to go ahead now.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] United Arab Emirates parliamentary election, 2015

 * Comment - I'm no expert on this, but is there a reason not to hold off until after the results come out and we have some sourced comments from politics experts on who the candidates elected are and what the results could mean? I realise that we can't quote their opinions in the blurb, but I think people will be most interested in seeing the article after some sources discussing the results come in. Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. General elections are ITNR, so no notability issues here.  The blurb, though, needs to somehow reference the winners; usually we put "X party led by John Public, won the UAE parliamentary election" or something like that. If these elections are historic as stated, that could be noted as well.  Article will need to be updated adequately. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Political parties are illegal in UAE, candidates stand as individuals. EamonnPKeane (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction; the blurb may want to clarify that. I've made a suggestion. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the UAE, so probably it would be "John al-Public". -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not without results. It doesn't have to be "X party led by Y wins the elections"; something like "20 new members are elected to the FNC" works as well. But that is still a result, and until there are results to the elections, I would oppose posting. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated per Banedon. Let's wait for results, if they're not available, and post when it's ready with a descriptive blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] South Carolina flash floods (Nor'easter)

 * Oppose for now - In the grande scheme of things not really worth posting now unless it does get worse. This is only causing major disruption to one state. Stories should not be posted on the back of a "maybe" (even if it is a strong "maybe") Meanwhile, 16 people are confirmed dead on the French Riviera . --109.149.136.105 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So nominate a story about the French Riviera. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's being called a "once in 500 years" event. If that's not "rare" enough for ITN I don't know what is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose this should be merged with the Joaquin blurb, since it is causing this rain. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See below discussion with Masem & Juliancolton as to why this shouldn't be done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'll go along with whatever decision prevails, then. Aside from not posting something. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a satellite image would be instructive. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The disruption of the lives of millions in a single state due to a 500-year rain event seems notable; damage will likely be extensive and widespread. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hurricane Joaquin, this two are connected phenomenons. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Meteorologically they are separate events, albeit partially intertwined. Although the nor'easter tapped into moisture from Joaquin, the floods would not have taken place without the East Coast low. Joaquin's effects are limited to moisture transport and merging them gives undue weight to the hurricane's influence. NOAA does not attribute the event to Joaquin and the WPC focuses on the coastal low in their summaries. Only ones tying Joaquin into this beyond the moisture transport is the media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While separate events, to highlight the flash floods and ignore the damage that Joaquin's caused is rather poor form. --M ASEM (t) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Joaquin caused no damage in the United States, there's no need to mention it here. I nominated Joaquin as a separate event yesterday with its notability stemming from widespread damage in the Bahamas and the disappearance (and likely sinking) of El Faro. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Joaquin has not yet hit the States, it's expected to drop its rain tonight, which atop the existing flooding will make things works. A blurb like "A combination of Hurricane Joaquin and a weather front in the southeast US cause flash flooding in SC, the disappearance of one ship, and at least (40) deaths". --M ASEM (t) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Joaquin is currently lashing Bermuda and continuing northeast out to sea after that (expected to bring gales to the UK in ~6 days). It's not touching the US. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This storm is drawing moisture from the Hurricane; that's the connection, as the rain would not be as bad if not for the hurricane. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The most significant factor in the event is the non-tropical low over the Southeast. Without that system, it would be sunny in South Carolina today. Large quantities of moisture were already in place with this event and widespread flooding was going to happen with or without Joaquin. Even a week back when models initially dissipated Joaquin, the frontal system was shown producing widespread torrential rain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Joaquin had a much more deadly impact, but we sometimes forget that when the states aren't hit as bad. The news is focusing on the eastern-moving front that is dropping rain, but even still, most reports fear that Joaquin's storm edge will drop yet more rain on that same area, up through NJ, even if the eye doesn't make landfall in the states. It is best to treat this as a combined story because it is difficult to separate which part is which in terms of the affect on human life. --M ASEM (t) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No credible meteorological agency is concerned that Joaquin's "storm edge", whatever that is, is going to influence the weather in the United States. I'll direct you to the Weather Prediction Center's short-range public discussion, which doesn't so much as mention the hurricane, but discusses the heavy rain threat from a non-tropical upper-level low (the system in question). The same is true of their more technical QPF discussion, which says "The intense low level easterly to east-northeasterly inflow with very high PWATs within this axis will continue on the northeast side of the closed low, impacting at least eastern and central portions of the Carolinas. This will again support continued training of areas of rainfall in this inflow axis of above average PW values." Tropical moisture contributed to the extreme precipitation totals, but the link to Joaquin itself is tenuous at best, and if you need to see it with your own eyes, here's a current WV loop showing two distinct synoptic-scale systems... the ULL over the southeast which produced flooding rains, and the tropical cyclone nearing Bermuda. I'm not sure where you learned that rain was expected as far north as NJ, but the WPC predicts virtually no precipitation north of the Outer Banks for the next several days, and in fact the weather looks quite sunny for most of the northeast. I think you need a more reliable source for forecasts. :) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At least when I was watching CNN this morning (no sound but going by on screen visuals) they were still implying that Carolinas up through NJ were preparing for Joaquin rainfall. Clearly since then the path has shifted to be more NE-ish. But there is still indications that the two systems are affecting each other, and because of their geographical proximity and similar effects, we should treat them as a common story. --M ASEM (t) 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What indications might those be? A hurricane and a cold-core upper-level low are about as dissimilar as large-scale cyclones can get. They have different origins, wildly different mechanisms for intensification, and different real-world effects. That Joaquin and the nor'easter-like storm are relatively close to each other make them no more "common" than for two individuals to die in the same country. As a rule of thumb, CNN has never and will never override NOAA. Essentially you're dismissing a source that's as reliable as you can get in regards to meteorology because of something you saw on TV while it was muted. The information Julian provided should be more than enough to dispel the thought of merging these two events together. Meteorology is what the two of us excel in, and it's my profession. It would be remiss of me to completely overlook this event in the way you seem to be suggesting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – What about flash floods that have taken at least 16 lives in the French Riviera? Sca (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What about it? Does the presence of a smaller-scale, albeit deadlier, flood nullify the notability of this event? Both are notable in their own rights and on different levels. I have my hands full with Joaquin and this nor'easter so if you wish to create the article and nominate it please do so by all means. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's symptomatic that there's no massive rush to create a French Riveria disaster article... Bloody systemic bias.... !  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say that a) the nominated storm doesn't strike me as particularly notable on the global scale, and b) it would be odd and seemingly U.S.-centric to run this one but not the French one. Sca (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then create an article for the French one and nominate it. I've already nominated two non-US related natural disasters, one of which was just posted, and the other is rotting without attention. Any claims of a U.S. bias here are insulting. This "global scale" aspect is ridiculous at times and haphazardly handed out, namely against U.S.-related topics simply to squash them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, I happen to be an American. Sca (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Unless there is a significant death toll we tend to shy away from weather related events. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I am not convinced the level of damage, at least so far, makes this ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Switching to Support following a closer examination of the news sources including updated reports. This does in fact look like a pretty epic flood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So widespread and disruptive effects that have, for all intents and purposes, shut an entire state down are rendered moot simply because not that many people died? A 1-in-1000-year event means nothing because a certain death quota wasn't met? Absurd. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "death toll" requirement for ITN, and one shouldn't be instituted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Photos of the flooding. One of America's most important roads cut in two by water. 1,000 year rain in the Lowcountry.


 * South Carolina's capital (almost 1 million metro population) will have 15 inches in 2 1/4 days if the forecast holds true. I can't tell if I've found the most shocking point on this curve (can't find past hourly numbers) but this is at least an almost 2,000 year rainfall event for this city of 900,000 (extrapolate from the other curves). Gills Creek in the capital went from not flooded to twice the record flood in 5 hours and then the flood gauge broke (while it was still shooting up like a rocket). The flood gauge hasn't given a reading since then (destroyed?). Mandatory city-wide curfew of 6pm (!) in the capital. That's an hour and 4 minutes before sunset. Charleston, pop. 700K (where the Civil War started) had 98% of it's rainiest October ever fall this Saturday alone and broke it's 1 day rainfall record. This is a subtropical place that gets frequent hurricanes remember. some parts near Charleston got 0.6 meters of rain in 3 days and that was by 7am today. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait – Having scanned at a Washington Post roundup featuring numerous photos, I must admit this looks pretty big. However, I suggest waiting until the weather system subsides and more details emerge about its effects. Sca (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Governor of South Carolina has described this as a '1000-year' event and is asking all people to stay where they are and not leave, even on foot. . 331dot (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarcastic oppose: This is happening in the United States and therefore it doesn't matter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was a good one. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support looks like a pretty major event to me. That said, I'd suggest using the phrase "nor'easter" in the blurb, because although 'weather system' is an established technical phrase, when I read the blurb my first thoughts were that some kind of man-made weather control or early warning system had malfunctioned and caused the flooding. Support merge with Hurricane Joaquin. They may be different meteorological events but they're both meteorological events in the same part of the globe. Some kind of blurb that talks about chaotic weather in the Bahamas and South Carolina seems most natural to me. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and Support Merge Something along the lines Hurricane Joaquin causes floods in the Bahamas and the loss of the cargo ship El Faro while South Carolina suffers record floods, with separate targets for Joaquin and SC. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready with combined blurb as both articles are relevant and well supported and updated. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment happy to post this but the first blurb seems insufficient, the second is far too long. Can we find a suitable compromise? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt 3 offered above. Sca (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Either alt version looks good to me,, but I personally would be inclined to mention a combined total of at least 40 lives lost. The important thing, however, is really to get the target articles up there, so if short is better then short is good. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely for itn. it is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note – The U.S. Coast Guard has announced that the El Farois believed to have sunk during Joaquin and recovered one body; 32 remain missing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update – Based on above, Alt3 updated to "claiming an estimated 40 lives." Sca (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: do Hurricane Joaquin and the nor'easter actually produce flooding? Perhaps "Hurricane Joaquin and a nor'easter cause extensive flooding in the Bahamas and Southeast U.S. coastal areas, resulting in an estimated 40 deaths" would be better? Banedon (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources commonly use the word "produce" (and derivatives thereof) in this context (referring to various effects of a storm). See this Google News search for "produced flooding".  —David Levy 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 NRL Grand Final

 * Oppose based on current state. No references whatsoever and very little prose. Significant improvements need to be made for this to be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat)
 * Support Once updated. Clearly not ready to be posted right now. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's ITNR, so "support once updated" is somewhat redundant. It's way off the quality we need for main page inclusion, please add a bunch of references, and an enhanced description of the final, which I'm led to believe was one of the better ones.  Do it justice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] AFL Grand Final

 * Support article is of sufficient standard to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as no one has objected and this is ITNR, I'm marking this as ready. Jenks24 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest posting. Per TRM's assertion that the article is good to go. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Handful of unsourced pieces of prose scattered about the article, once those are handled I'll be happy to post. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added more refs, pretty sure everything is covered now – every paragraph has at least one ref. Marking ready again. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Bombing of Médecins Sans Frontières hospital

 * Support once the article is improved. This seems to be a major news pertaining to the killing of innocent people and the departure of one of the most famous humanitarian organisations as result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: If the article on the bombing, and the one on the organisation, use "Médecins Sans Frontières", then the blurb should too. G RAPPLE   X  08:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed it in the blurb and have also proposed an alternative one mentioning their departure from the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did they really left country? So far herd that they left just Kunduz. Are there any reilabele sources to support that? --Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I found something mentioning it in a news article in my country but cannot find anything in English. I will change then the wording of the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support mayor war crime, sgnificant dead-toll --Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence it was a war crime, be it "mayor" or "major". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I've given the article a bit of reordering and chapter structure, but more work is obviously needed. The notability of the incident seems clear. Jus  da  fax   12:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support article is in decent enough shape for posting, a couple of POV tweaks wouldn't go amiss, but it summarises the situation well and is good to go, marking as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's one unsourced quote in the article (John F Campbell), which needs to be fixed for sure. Otherwise looks fine for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Trivial, a two-second Google, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major news, decent quality article (aside from that unsourced quote Masem noticed) . – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This story is already off the front pages. Posting this would be anti-American, pr0-Taliban propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As of this posting the story is prominently featured on the website of the Washington Post. Jus  da  fax   22:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support if nothing else, just so we have fewer people who think like Baseball Bugs in the future. LjL (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you find it on BBC.com international edition? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support prompt posting. Story remains current. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've edited this myself, but only to copyedit and throw out sources like Twitter.  Since there isn't any opposition that is actually related to the guidelines at ITN, posting. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Denis Healey

 * Support Major figure in 1970s UK politics. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, and I wouldn't oppose a blurb. Not just a major figure in UK and European politics in the 1970s, but one of the last survivors among the original architects of the post-war consensus. For such a divisive figure, his article is in surprisingly good shape. ‑ iridescent 16:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just don't know how to write a blurb summing up Healey's importance. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on article improvements for RD only, oppose blurb. The article is missing a lot of citations throughout with some unsourced paragraphs, and some about his importance resting on one or two. The RD criteria is clearly there, but while I accept he played a major role in British politics, the influence on the rest of the world doesn't seem to be there to where a blurb would be appropriate. We're talking a Cabinet level position, and there, I would expect someone as influential as, say, Winston Churchill, was to be a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD conditional on improved sourcing. Oppose blurb He was 98 so his passing is not a surprise and while he certainly meets ITND criteria, his notability is not great enough to justify a blurb. The Queen will almost certainly get one when she passes and Margaret Thatcher should have gotten one (I don't remember if she did). But we are talking about a cabinet level figure here. He needs to have done something really over the top to warrant a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just FYI Thatcher did get a blurb. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD when article is of sufficient quality. Weak oppose blurb largely per Ad Orientem. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Okay, he held one of the Great Offices of State. Yet when U.S. Speakers of the House die (1, 2), it isn't posted. It wouldn't be posted if he was in a comparable office of any other nation either. There's a systemic bias here with British non-heads of state getting support where top non-heads of state from other countries get dismissed and I'm pointing that out whether you Brits like it or not. Go ahead, flame me for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point with regards to inconsistency in the application of RD guidelines (though I think your point would have been stronger if you had avoided accusing an entire group of editors of bias based on nationality). That said I am standing by my Support !vote because he clearly meets the guidelines. So, for that matter, do Speakers of the House of Representatives. I have consistently opined that they meet ITND criteria and I believe that arguments to the contrary can only be made by ignoring the plain language of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I count a grand total of one (or possibly two) Brits among the supports. Not everyone disagreeing with you has to be part of a conspiracy. &#8209; iridescent 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have everyone's nationality memorized, but I see at least 3 of the 5 supports are British, Ad Orientem's page indicates interest in British history but doesn't list nationality, and one of the five I don't know. The one I don't know, Masem, says this guy played a "major role in British poltiics", but called Jim Wright a "Mid-level US politician". I find that baffling. Believe me, I don't want to call out editors, and I don't want to restart a U.S. vs. U.K. thing (especially not looking forward to when TRM logs on and reads this), but I'm calling it like I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am American. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * American here too. But to the point, this appears to be the equivalent of the Secretary of Defense in the US, and there, not every one that is named is necessarily material for RD to start. I'm judging the contributions as listed on the bio page and its clearly more than average so RD is completely fair. --M ASEM  (t) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. Speaker is above Sec Def in the U.S. presidential succession, though. I still don't understand the opposition to those two deceased speakers, while this will clearly pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Succession to the seat of power is one thing, actual actions and activities is another. For example, Donald Rumsfeld has far more important a play on world politics than Dennis Hastert, Speaker at the same time. That's what I'm judging here is what the person's larger impact was and it seems significant enough to qualify for RD but certainly not for a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Hastert Rule rears it's head quite frequently. That's his impact. Otherwise I'd agree Rumsfeld probably had a greater impact than Hastert. Still, these are top level officials if they reach those offices. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great to see such an insightful analysis of British politics here as part of the discussion on Healey. 81.152.16.52 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said below, it would be nice if the nominator or any of the people supporting this nomination would analyze Healey's impact, but noone has. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a stab at it. During the period of chaos in European economies in the 1970s following the 1973 oil crisis, the British government was uniquely disadvantaged. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease and was drinking heavily, and both major political parties were in open civil war between various ideological factions; thus, the Chancellor in this period was actually a more significant figure than any of the succession of Prime Ministers. Healey pretty much single-handedly stabilised the economy, which in turn prevented what was then the EEC from disintegrating and made the modern EU possible, and provided a stable basis for the Thatcher government's reforms (no private investor would have invested in an economy that was in the state Britain had been in in 1973) which in turn provided the economic template for the western world for the next 30 years. In addition to this, he was also the man responsible for the forced depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago, making him the single most important figure in the history of the Chagossians. &#8209; iridescent 06:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose a blurb but support RD. I don't think he rises to the level of people like Thatcher but reading his page he does seem to be very important to his field.  I also think we could use an update of some kind(there is nothing in the RD line currently) 331dot (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Iridescent who makes a good summary of the contributions of Healy. No need for a blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb but support RD – His name rings a bell even for a vulgar American like – Sca (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Iconic for what? Simply saying that he was iconic is like saying he was notable.  We need a rationale, not a reassertion of the obvious in exaggerated terms.  What did he do that others haven't or wouldn't have done? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a great point I forgot to raise. It's a long article, with systemic bias playing a factor in why it's of strong quality in the first place, but skimming it and the posts above don't tell me why he was so important, other than the office he rose to, which still wasn't enough for two Speakers of the House. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not really ITN material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD - Pretty obviously. Very influential chancellor in office through some of Britain's most turbulent post-war years. Fgf10 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it seems obvious to you, but those of us with no prior knowledge of him are still looking for a rationale other than that he was "influential" or a "major figure", because that's vague and others who could claim that have been rejected here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose RD (full oppose for blurb) – per Moboshgu and Medeis. If someone can quantify why Healey was "iconic" for me, I'd be more inclined to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And maybe I'd reconsider, too. I am after all making the case that a politician who didn't serve as head of state can be posted depending on the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD per Iridescent's explanation of importance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis and Muboshgu.  Calidum   01:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, weakly, for RD, and simple oppose for blurb, on article quality grounds. The minor problem is that there are a fair number of unreferenced assertions in the article; some but not all have been tagged.  The major problem is that the article's text establishes that he was an important politician; but it doesn't really establish that he had a "significant impact" on the country.  He may well have, but it isn't in the text.  He was elected to Parliament.  He negotiated loans and proposed budgets, the sort of things you'd expect the head of a treasury to do.  Then his party lost, and he was not chosen to lead it.  Add a couple referenced testimonials to his significant impact from historians, and I might change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He is 98 years old, his death is natural. sst✈ 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose RD (full oppose blurb). Never a party leader (well, not permanently anyway), let alone PM. Got to draw the line somewhere. I think there may be some nostalgia for Healey given the pathetic state of the Labour Party today. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Seems significant enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is hilarious, the American editors are so transparent. "You don't support posting this years umpteenth school shooting, we're just going to oppose all British noms." ITN is such a joke. There have been plenty of explanations why this is ITN material, and all the opposes are just ignoring that, or complaining Americans weren't posted. Nobody has yet given a valid oppose. Oh and Support for RD if that wasn't obvious yet. 82.8.32.177 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "[O]ppose all British noms." Yes, we're opposing all one of them because our feelings are hurt and we're annoyed that the "homeland" doesn't care about us. The reasons for opposing were quite clear and reasonable; no one explained why Healey was "iconic" at first. He's a figure that naturally wouldn't garner much attention outside of Britain so how are we supposed to inherently know about him? It's up to the nominator (or anyone who wishes to do so in the stead) to explain why the topic they're nominating is notable. This was not done properly and the nomination received opposition by basic comparison accordingly since that's what we had to work with. My concerns have since been resolved by Iridescent's explanation which gives me a better idea of his importance and I would imagine others have a better idea how to adjust their votes if they see fit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite transparent. Like being "savaged by a dead sheep". 217.38.154.231 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "so how are we supposed to inherently know about him?" - Jesus tap dancing Christ - this is an encyclopedia! Look at the article and judge for yourself. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, let me just spend my time reading up on a subject (person) I care next to nothing about when the nominator, who would likely have a better understanding of the subject, can easily explain the importance for everyone, not just myself, to understand. It streamlines the process of ITN/C and allows more people to take part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes. You make it seem as if it's an impossible task - only a very brief scan of the page in question (you know...the lead? Which summarizes the article?) would be enough to get yourself informed. If you didn't know all the facts, why did you even bother voting? Asking people (especially an admin) if they could take an active interest in the article subject they're discussing is not too much to ask, is it? How much of your time would it take to just read the opening few sentences of an article? The nominator may as well just copy/paste segments of the lead here (with sources) - which is fine, and something that they probably should do for the sake of convenience. "a better understanding of the subject," - Most of the time I doubt it. And if they feel passionate about the subject, then you might be inclined to believe that they would provide more detailed info here. Sheesh. And your comment about IP editors is noted - hardly befitting of an Admin, and hardly befitting the spirit of the project. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time of my comment, the lede did nothing to properly convey Healey's importance. There's no mention of the economic improvements that Iridescent explained, nothing about setting the stage for the modern EU, but there is a piece about his bushy eyebrows. I got no sense of importance and voted accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant enough to justify inclusion at ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on account of this nom being disrupted by tendentious editors and IPs. We can readdress this when cooler heads have prevailed.--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Effectively the second-most powerful figure in British politics during one of its darkest hours since the War. Blythwood (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD by ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that - my PC crashed just as I posted it. Rationale:  Pretty much 2:1 support for this, article is reasonably well sourced (though the section which would cement Healey's importance as noted by Iridescent above could be expanded), and RD was currently empty. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead of this article still doesn't suggest to me why this guy is significant, if Speakers of the U.S. House aren't. I'll look forward to referencing this thread the next time an American non-head of state politician of great importance dies and the users who supported this nom start opposing it. Congratulations on reinforcing the U.K. systemic bias! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As we should know by now, precedence on ITN really doesn't mean anything. Never forget that an amateur provincial collegiate sport got posted to ITN after years of non-posting. Just lie back and think of England.--WaltCip (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean one of the most significant sporting events in the U.S.? That Brits dismiss as an "amateur provincial" event out of a lack of understanding and lack of a desire to understand that its impact in the U.S. overrides its lack of impact in the U.K.? I'm taking this to WT:ITN, no sense in getting off the topic of this thread that can close now that the inevitable posting has been made. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane Joaquin (updated)

 * support - widespread damage, potentially many deaths. etc. this is ITN material.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am weary of putting out a natural disaster with absolutely no deaths. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note – unconfirmed reports of deaths in the Bahamas. Although the nation hit by hurricanes every few years, seldom are there fatalities, let alone multiple fatalities. To anyone hesitant over supporting because of an upfront lack of statistics, the scale of damage should be more than enough to warrant posting in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Devastating category 4 hurricane that had a significant impact on the Bahamas.  Dough   4872   11:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. If deaths are needed to make the storm worthy of a blurb, the likely loss of the El Faro with 33 crew members counts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Brian Friel

 * Comment: Contra nominator, referencing is not good for this article at all, including unreferenced quotes. Looks to be notable as a Tony Award-winner, but article is not currently postable. Happy to support once it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: nominating an article under BLP and updating it with a single cited sentence is not a sufficient update if the majority of the article remains unsourced. While the lead is packed with inline cites, the last few sections have very few references. But otherwise, would support for RD as a three-time Tony Award nominee (with one win) and one of a handful of artists elected to the title Saoi. Fuebaey (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on significant improvement in sourcing. Subject appears to meet ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - as per ad orientem.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The entire "Career" section—which is most of the article—is virtually unreferenced. ‑ iridescent 09:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article needs a lot of editing.  Personally, I'm not interested in doing that (and incidentally, despite the nomination above, don't wish to be credited for the one sentence I did add).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Oppose on article quality. Massive chunks of prose are entirely unsourced and it seems like it would take a considerable amount of effort to fix this article. Certainly will be happy to support if someone spends the time to fix the article, but I certainly can't do so considering its current state. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements There are still unsourced paragraphs, but the subject meets importance criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely notable enough for front page. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The more I read the more I am left with the impression of a rare and important writer. I have spent a few hours working on this and it should be improved now. --Benchwarming (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Should this be marked ready, or is more work needed? I still see a few unreferenced grafs. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have marked it ready if that helps. --Benchwarming (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 05:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Yemen cuts relations with Iran

 * Support once the article is expanded. The cease of diplomatic relations between two countries is very significant and can also have major implications on the relations in other spheres (e.g. economic relations).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are currently two entities claiming to represent the government of Yemen. Perhaps the blurb should make it clear which one is cutting off relations? -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm intending to withdraw this, as Reuters updated their previous report in the linked URL, citing a Yemeni government spokesman who denied the end of relations. Brandmeistertalk  15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - updated and ready, then post. not before.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] El Cambray Dos landslide

 * support - notable and important enough. considerable number of deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per BabbaQ. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note – Updated blurb to reflect increased death toll and missing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable, article is short but seems well-referenced. starship.paint ~  KO   02:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a mayor natural disaster which death-toll is already far higher than Hurricane Joaquin, October 2015 nor'easter or anything that happen in near past. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready; not sure if I can go so far as to post my own nomination though so I'll wait for another admin to chime in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment For now more that 130 bodies were recovered from landslide. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Umpqua Community College shooting

 * Oppose with apologies to the nom who makes an obviously sincere argument for why we should be covering all of these shootings. Unfortunately they are far too common in the United States to keep posting them all. If something turns up that makes this one different (perhaps evidence of a terrorist motive?) I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It is becoming increasingly clear that this is NOT the usual random mass shooting we have become so used to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate your appreciation of my argument. To me the motive isn't so important. It could be a jilted lover, or someone who feels they were unfairly fired, or it could be a terrorist. The mass shooting, to me, meets the "significance" criteria of ITN as part of the crisis we have with guns in this country. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu that motive means little in the story, compared to destruction. Adam Lanza worried that his mother would send him away, Klebold and Harris felt bullied – neither of those motives is out of the ordinary with modern American life, but the destruction they wrought clearly is &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * support - considerable number of deaths. had it been 1-2 deaths or no deaths I would have agreed with Ad orientem, but here we have a major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - And, I literally came onto WP because I assumed that someone would propose this, and so I could oppose it. I don't feel particularly good about being right about it. I'm afraid this is just NEWS and not an opportunity to showcase our articles. Sad news, but, even sadder, barely news. Pedro : Chat  19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are definitely wrong in your assessment about this bing "barely news". That is just simply wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How fascinating. You'll no doubt explain to me what my own standard is for "barely news". Don't be so presumptive. My argument is that this does not support further learning or show case quality. Your opinion on what my opinions are... Well. 86.163.163.210 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC) — 86.163.163.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Just to note there's a massive edit-war going on at the moment. I've warned both users (see article talkpage for more).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem, although I feel we will be lone voices. The ongoing gunlust and solution (more guns!!) means that this stuff happens all the time in the US, and hardly ever elsewhere in the "developed world".  Sure, it's a tragic event, those folks shouldn't have been killed, but that shooter shouldn't have had free-and-easy access to guns.  It will be "yet another" mass murder this year in the US, we can safely move on unless something significant beyond "kid shoots up school".  Unlike the nominator's claim, spree shootings are normal in the US, just like market bombings are common in Iraq and traffic accidents are common in India.  I'm sorry about that, but somehow a lot of the US seems happy to facilitate this, or worse, encourage it.  All that notwithstanding, this will 100% be posted as this is American Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reason that the article is practically a stub, due to the lack of information around. Ten deaths by one person is extremely shocking, but there is little on the article to inform the reader right now. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Major shooting event, big story. News is news, even if it happens in America. This isn't a difficult decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - even by American standards for massacres, the body count is high. Article needs a massive amount of improvement before it could be posted though. Resolute 20:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point anything on this subject should be posted IFF something is done about the legislation. Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose – per Ad Orientem and TRM ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support after rethinking things. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the page is available to edit I'm frankly tired of trying to encourage new editors when everything linked from the main page is locked. It's an invitation with a door slam. So, I think we need to be sensitive to the newbies. There are lots of eyes on the page and vandalism, as there will be, will be reverted quickly - we have tools, they don't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It IS available to edit. By registered users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this kind of thing happened "all the time", it wouldn't be in the news. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait. We don't know enough about the identity of the shooter or the motive to make an informed decision about the relative significance of this tragedy or create a front page worthy article about it.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mass shootings in the US are commonplace. There have been 264 shootings in 274 days this year. There is nothing that makes this one stand out from the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 142nd school shooting in the last 3 years, and 45th mass shooting in US this year. These are no longer news. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? "No longer news"? I guess the news reporters covering it should be told to go home, then. Their job is to cover news. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that then. Such events are no longer so unusual that they qualify for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't see it that way. I think, if anything, the frequency of these events elevates the newsworthiness of each one, as the lack of action on the part of the U.S. becomes more and more galling. I'm aware that I'm treading close to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but this is a newsworthy event regardless of how many we've had. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you not think that Wikipedia ignoring such an event is actually sending a more powerful message? Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, paraphrasing what Obama said, that most of us have become too numb to these shootings, leading to apathy. Somehow this has become routine when it is anything but. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well said and I can see your point. I'm still, however, going to stick with my oppose unless this turns out to be different from "random wingnut with a gun shoots people". Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We shall see what the motive is. We have reports that the shooter asked people to state their religion before shooting. The feds are apparently investigating a threat made on 4chan. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Ad Orientem, TRM, Black Kite. Obama made much the same point in his statement today. (Click on video.) Sca (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a shooter singling out Christians to be shot in the head, killing well over a dozen people on a school campus with no armed guard is certainly as big a news incident as Charlie Hebdo. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Charlie Hebdo was internationally noted as provocative - it had a long history of provocation by printing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in 2007, had their offices firebombed in 2011 and the murders in 2015 were instigated by Al-Qaeda putting them on a hit list - this school has no political context. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The opposes are dumb. How about we make the "it happens all the time" argument for typhoons striking Asia, disease in third world countries or European countries going bankrupt?   Calidum   00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the criteria for newsworthiness is: the unusual. (Obviously, such events shouldn't be usual in an ostensibly advanced country – which is what President Obama argued today.) Sca (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything, the point he was trying to make is that how numb we've become to these shootings is unusual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed; alas, that doesn't make such events unusual. Sca (talk)


 * Support. Assuming we believe the USA Today backed Behind the Bloodshed project, this is only the 8th US mass killing since 2006 to have more than 10 victims, and the largest mass shooting since the Washington Navy Yard shooting of 2013.  For me that is sufficient evidence that this is not a routine shooting event, but instead a sufficiently unusual one to qualify for ITN.  That said, I agree that we should wait for a bit more information and article development before posting.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I allow that it tops U.S. media Thursday, but alas I expect it to fade quickly from the public consciousness – as just another crazy shooting spree. The gun laws won't change in Amerika. Sca (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As unusual it was in Oregon or community colleges, we have already posted Charleston church shooting this year. Let the media do their dirty work (media is plural of medium). In the meantime, the reactions about "numbness" is overstated. In fact, the more newsworthy than this is repealing or amending the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or signing a bill restricting gun use or sales or something. The media focus on this shooting because... the shooting happened in peaceful Oregon. "Unusualness" as one of criteria? We have already posted annual sports events and award ceremonies. The UK has been restricting gun use without written Constitution (but instead uncodified), while the US... struggles to restrict with the Amendment in place. George Ho (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The school has not done anything political above any other soft target in the area - the Dylan Roof Charleston church shooting had obvious political/racial issues at play. I'd be willing to re-consider in 24 hours if there are any actual political ramifications beyond the usual school shootings in the U.S. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. TOP number one story right now on both Google News, and Yahoo! News. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I feel these are just too common now to highlight each and every one. Blythwood (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Cirt. Opposers fail to convince. Each time one of these shootings happen is a separate event involving different people acting for different reasons, which is a fundamental difference over things like the daily battles in the Syrian Civil War that result in deaths. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet another shooting. The impact only extends to those directly harmed by this.  Unless there's serious connection to the IRA stuff that he had been supporting, this is yet another lonely malcontent speading misery.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blythwood, unless this is the catalyst that causes the US to finally wake up and see sense. We can but hope... &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Another week, another shooting. Rapidly losing newsworthiness. Fgf10 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The anti-American bias is quite strong here. What a complete joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more a reminder that the rest of the world are sick and tired of seeing these events, sick and tired of the "shock" and "upset" that is portrayed, only for nothing to change. Go buy a burger, get a gun while you're there, etc etc.  These events are no longer uncommon, they are not ITN newsworthy, nearly 150 school shootings in three years?  Perhaps suggest a school shooting ticker instead.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How many of those 150 were nominated or posted? No one is suggesting posting every school shooting, or every earthquake, or every airplane crash. As (I think) the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook, this one seems significant enough to post. If reasonable people objectively disagree, that's fine. If this gets buried underneath a bunch of "It's Amerika, happens all the time, they need moar gun laws" hyperbole, that's pretty lame. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not lame at all. That's what happens, that's why we don't post suicide bombings in markets any longer, or traffic accidents in India.  They are commonplace.  As for your quote, well it's abosultely spot on, isn't it, not hyperbole at all, unless you and your countryfolk are content to keep seeing children shot to death every week while you do nothing about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's garbage. At least try to give the illusion of objectivity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, not garbage. I'm afraid it's the US that lacks objectivity. If something happens on a regular basis, it's not news any more. Simple as that. What needs to be done to stop these is an entirely different discussion for a different place. (Well not really a discussion, it's blatantly obvious, but I digress) Fgf10 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's garbage? And that's why the rest of look on incredulously while your children are murdered every day and you do nothing (apart from encourage moar gunz in schools).  What a bizarre approach to life and what an offhand and dismissive attitude to children being murdered.  One mass shooting per day, well played.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention dead children in every post in order to try to win an internet argument, but it's the level of class we've come to expect from you, and I guess that's oddly comforting in its own way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre response. This is a proposed post about a school shooting?  Perhaps you misunderstood.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support if major news organizations worldwide consider it major news, then opposing it seems like sour grapes. The world's news organizations consider it major news. As to those saying that it happens all the time it should not be noted, well, we should stop noting natural disasters then, since they happen all the time, and with much the same effects, and much the same lack of preparation. If the news headlines or frontpage news outside the region of origin, then it should be a simple decision that it qualifies for ITN. This currently headlines DW.com (Germany), BBC News (UK) ; is front page news for SCMP (Hong Kong), ABC News (Australia) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine, medium-low death count, no lasting impact. 109.149.137.78 (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although, it is newsworthy about just how blind America is to its own glaring gun problem.--WaltCip (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support because the shooter was apparently asking about his victims' religion. If not for that, I would not support. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly does this change about this routine, senseless, essentially legalized massacre?--WaltCip (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes it a hate crime. But the 'routine' aspect you cite is the reason I don't support this more strongly.  If it isn't posted it won't bother me. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that this was not a church, and that any other "soft" target could have been attacked and the same thing done - the target was not chosen specifically for political purposes (unlike the Charleston church shooting) -- Callinus (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per The Rambling Man's reasoning. The nominator has apparently tried to explain how the United States are different than Afghanistan and how each shooting is sui generis but there is nothing compelling beyond this tragic event that makes me think something would change in the future. Shooting incidents in countries like the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are fairly common, meaning that these countries are similar in it regardless of the different incentives for all these incidenents. School shootings, which constitute the largest portion of all shooting incidents in the country over the last couple of years, are even less significant than other shootings, as they occur on recurrent basis and the incentives for each of them remain very unclear, implying that they don't have the potential to trigger other subsequent incidents. For example, the Charleston church shooting was a shooting incident with almost the same casualities but it was an unusual shooting of racial character that lead to multiple subsequent events and harsh community response. Sociologically, school shootings as example of a social deviance in the American society should have already been brought to resolution on a highest level by the authorities but, unfortunately, the authorities haven't done anything yet to tackle this deviance. That said, they either: 1) don't prioritise the problem with shooting incidents and thereby consider them as routine acts in the society or 2) don't want to restrict the freedom on the market of weapons because of the extremely high potential losses in the industry. In conclusion, a news regarding the school shootings in the United States that is worth posting is definitely not a shooting with a high death toll but a law or regulation (e.g. restrictions in the possession of weapons) that would prevent them in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As it is, the obsolete Second Amendment almost always backfires by not protecting those whom it's supposed to protect: whenever a shooting occurs, it turns out no one around is armed to respond. Either some strict gun control legislation or the repeal of the Second Amendment would be newsworthy. Brandmeistertalk  12:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I misread "newsworthy" as "necessary". But I think both applies in this case. Why is taking so bloody long?--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)