Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Günter Grass

Ongoing: Yemeni Civil War Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Recent deaths: Percy Sledge Eduardo Galeano

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting. For recent deaths, please state why the person is notable enough to post - merely having a Wikipedia article is insufficient.
  • Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Be aware that RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • Be aware that the blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... 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.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


April 18[edit]

April 17[edit]

Oldest stone tools[edit]

Updated article: Lomekwi 3
Blurb: Stone tools found at Lomekwi 3 are dated to 3.3 million years ago, which, if confirmed, would represented the oldest known stone tools.
News source(s): Science, NPR, Scientific American
Nominator and updater: ThaddeusB (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Story should probably be dated to April 14, as that is the date of the announcement even though it is just hitting mainstream news now. Either way, the story is not stale.

Nominator's comments: This is potentially a really big find as it would push the earliest date of tool making back before the dawn of the Homo genus. Naturally, there will be some debate, but the early indication is that scientists are receptive to the findings (see Science & NPR articles). It will take a very long time to form a scientific consensus, and it will only be in the news now. As long as the language of the blurb is careful, there shouldn't be a problem posting. Edit: To be clear, the scientists behind this have not published their findings yet. Their work has been reviewed by outsiders and reported as news by reputable science sources, though. If people prefer to wait until the paper is published, that is perfectly fine, but I would like to potentially get consensus on that now to avoid later opposes as "not in the news" or "stale" since there will be a gap between the news coverage and the paper... Please indicate whether you prefer to post now, (potentially) later, or not at all. Thanks. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • SupportOppose Peer-review publication of findings. Beats the previous known date by 700k years so this clearly outside the likely chance of coincidence. Article in decent shape (looks like made on these findings). Adding a map to the article might help, but not a issue on ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A 15 minute oral presentation at a conference is not a peer-reviewed publication. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I misread that it was published by Science, as noted it's just a news report, one that I would give some weight to reliability if Science is reporting it, but yeah, we should wait for confirmation. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the paper has not been published yet, but is scheduled to be published in May. That would mean it has already been peer-reviewed (which happens before the paper is accepted). If consensus is to wait until it is published, that is fine by me, but be aware there likely will not be any press coverage at that time, so I certainly hope people wouldn't oppose as "stale" and/or for "lack of coverage" at that time... I would request comments be clear that they mean "support on merits of story, but wait for publication" (e.g. as a "wait" vote) if that is indeed what they mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you give a source indicating that the paper has already been successfully peer-reviewed? The Paleoanthropology Society journal prints the abstracts of all oral presentations, but that is neither peer-reviewed nor a proper paper. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you are correct. I misread something saying an abstract was due to be published as saying a paper was. I will ammend my comments accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Xenophobic attacks in South Africa[edit]

Article: Xenophobia in South Africa#Attacks in 2013–15
Blurb: Attacks on foreigners in Durban, South Africa kill at least six people.
News source(s): The Guardian BBC CNN Newsweek
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: The Guardian link describes these incidents, which have received a lot of news coverage, as "one of South Africa’s worst outbreaks of xenophobic violence in years." Lots of people are protesting the attacks as well, according to the Newsweek link above, and they have sparked international reactions. [1] Everymorning talk 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • support - per the fact that these attacks has been heavily covered by world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Fairly low death toll so far. Worth keeping an eye on, though. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If only because ITN is not really a great place for "slow" events like this. It's not as important as to fall into Ongoing, but there's also no obvious point where this is ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We also don't have ITN for the frequent "White US cop shoots black guy". LoveToLondon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when the "king of the Zulus" (Mina ngifunda isiZulu) calls for his neighbors to pack their bags it's Lebensraum all over again. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this kind of racial tension is permanent in some countries like South Africa and the United States. Some of what is written above is utterly false. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality seems low, some things in the article are poorly sourced. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

RD: A. Alfred Taubman[edit]

Article: A. Alfred Taubman
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CD
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Pioneered the modern shopping mall concept -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - An interesting idea of being leader in the field (its not conventional RD aspect) , but save for the Philanthropy section which lacks sources, this isn't a bad article to be ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not really seeing how he meets RD criterion for leading in the field of pioneering shopping malls, but certainly seemed philanthropic. Article is in a reasonable shape but could use checking for tone and tense, and as Masem points out, the odd additional cite for the mega-claims in the Philanthropy section must be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose What and when exactly did he pioneer? The article reads a lot like promotion, and it is not clear what he did (or didn't) pioneer compared to people like Victor Gruen. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you ever read any article fully and verify your claims by referring to the reliable source? All your previous claims are so lame that none have helped the ITN reviewers. Trust me...-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is interesting to see that you have nothing to answer except personal attacks against me when asked to explain your "pioneer" claim. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing any significant impact. (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not seeing any significant impact means one hasn't read the article. Godfather of the modern shopping mall, white knight savior of Sotheby's, a very intersting and accomplished mensch. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the "godfather" claim based on? I have read the article, and when you ignore the awful US-style bragging that is mostly based on his own book there is not much contents telling what he actually invented. The article even fails to say when and where he opened his first shopping mall (and a pioneering mall surely also has an own article). LoveToLondon (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I would have expected you to attack him for being a Jew, rather than just an American. Perhaps you should consider moving to East Germany? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Come on, WP:NPA. This bickering is pointless. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Some of it is disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not only disgusting, but clearly in breach of WP:CIVIL.-ELEKHHT 08:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Really solid sources such as Time and CNN back the pioneer claims. Not saying it is necessarily enough for RD (I'm neutral), but let's not pretend like the claims can't be backed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think part of it comes from "where do you draw the line of "field" in RD"? E.g. we'll have "pioneer in race relations" or "pioneer in neuroscience" or "pioneer in mountaineering" then "pioneering in college basketball" now "pioneering in shopping malls", next "pioneering in ice cream flavours" and "pioneering in flat pack furniture". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
When everyone just copies the term "pioneer" from the title of his book (some even upgrading it to "godfather") there is not even a basis for discussion. The article is currently complete rubbish when it comes to describing what he actually did in "pioneering" shopping malls (apart from becoming rich). The first section of "Shopping mall development" is filled with praise for him from himself and his partner, but even fails to mention when and where he opened his first mall. The article has so few facts in the field where it is said he was a pioneer - just compare it with the Victor Gruen article that makes it clear what he pioneered. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article gets a re-write - it needs to look and feel like an encyclopedia article. Challenger l (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LoveToLondon and others. In academic literature Victor Gruen is credited to be the 'pioneer' of shopping malls. Taubman could have been at most the pioneer of some self-defined-sub-type of mall. --ELEKHHT 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Monkey rediscovered[edit]

Updated article: Bouvier's red colobus
Blurb: Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey last seen in the 1970s and thought to possibly be extinct, is rediscovered in the Republic of the Congo.
Alternative blurb: A photograph of a Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey previously last seen in the 1970s, is published.
News source(s): UPI, Discovery News
Nominator: ThaddeusB (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's not every day a species of primate thought to be extinct is rediscovered after being unseen for nearly 50 years. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, he pointed out precisely one other occurrence of a primate plus a turtle, bat, and rat (all of which would be considerably less surprising) and a bird (somewhat comparable). So even including all vertebrates, we are talking ~1-2 per year, which is hardly common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Also of note, "rareness" is not a standard ITN works on. "Recent" and "In news sources" and "quality article" are all standards we judge against. We can arbitrarily define rareness anyway we want. Worldwide there's probably 1-2 national elections every month, and no one bats an eye if we post one of those. The rationale is spurious when it is based solely on a criteria we can easily demonstrate that we have never applied when deciding whether or not to post. --Jayron32 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought that too but opposed my nomination, because Nokia "doesn't make as many phones as they used to" (???) and because sometimes mergers don't go through. What I'm trying to say is that while ITN is designed around the recent, sources, and quality article standards, its standards in reality are a lot more high strung and things are often interpreted in odd ways.
More importantly I don't think this wasn't covered in many reliable news outlets at all, NBC is the only big outlet I can see that covered it. Not in BBC, Yahoo, CNN, USA Today, or any of the other big guys that ITN candidates usually have. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Your coverage argument is perfectly fine (but keep in mind that science stories are rather differently coverage than say political stories). However, I wouldn't be looking at an IP with minimal ITN experience to learn what ITN expects. People can and do make stupid arguments all the time (like Nokia being a small company with no impact, LOL), and such arguments will be ignored by the assessing admin just like any other area of Wikipedia. The only reason the Nokia story hasn't been posted yet is that we have a shortage of admins looking for things to post - the consensus is rather obviously in favor of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stale/Oppose. Really, I am opposing this on the grounds that the species is not taxonomically interesting. If an "extinct" Order (such as the Coelacanth) is found it truly is a big deal. Or even an "extinct" Family. Also, it is stale: reported on March 5th. Abductive (reasoning) 05:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose always nice to have some good news, but I'm perplexed by why our article says "they announced the find on March 3" yet this is not considered stale? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this is the sort of content we definitely should post occasionally, we are an encyclopedia after all. SeraV (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it was not listed as extinct, this is not news, just an interesting tidbit. The re-emergence of a species thought extinct is certainly newsworthy but this does not seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a rediscovery is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good news is underreported. Certainly more important in the long run than the fact that one of Secular Saddam's red-haired cousins was recently killed shilling for ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's just wrong. The rediscovery makes absolutely no difference to the monkeys, and scientifically it is garbage. Why do you think the hack who found them had to get crowdsourcing to fund his expedition? Because no granting agency was interested. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Since the soon-to-be acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent by Nokia is now posted, perhaps we should post this instead. We should be happy to find the last remains of this species. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have all the supporters overlooked that this discovery was first announced in early March? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't confirmed/publicly announced until now - a Facebook post by the explorers is hardly a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that's not what the article says. A sighting in March was made and announced publicly, I don't recall see (or saying) anything about a Facebook post. Are you suggesting this story hinges on the publication of a photo of the March discovery? Also, can you confirm the IUCN (or some other substantive body other than "Discovery News") has confirmed this discovery to be the real deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Bouvier's red colobus is "critically endangered" according to IUCN, and according to our article, as are "2464 animals and 2104 plants". It is not, and has never been classified by IUCN as "thought to be extinct" so your original proposal is somewhat misleading, as is the blurb. So, is this really a discovery worthy of all this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The article does say "They announced the find on March 3 via Indiegogo". Abductive linked to the corresponding Facebook post above. Either way, not a reliable source. The first RS report was this week... As far as authoritative confirmation goes, I am pretty sure IUCN reviews status on a scheduled basis (i.e. not specifically in response to findings). I imagine there will be a scientific paper published soon, but have no idea when.
Of the 2064 critically endangered species, how many were last spotted in the 1970s? Very few - most have known populations that happen to be very small (and many others are invertebrates). It is not deceptive to say "possibly extinct" that is exactly what the IUCN listing says: "Listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct)" - there is not separate "possibly extinct" category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that's all as I expected. The blurb is misleading, it's not "rediscovered" it's "photographed" and the RS all point at the Indiegogo link, so how odd, it's suddenly RS when a third-party points at it? Come on... For me, old news, nothing that exciting, and I remain opposed. Thanks for the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, sources point to the photograph (which came from a PR just released, not Indiegogo), not the March 3 blog post, as confirmation. And yes, that is how Wikipedia works - when an reliable source ("organization with a reputation for fact checking") reports something a primary source first mentioned, it becomes "reliable" information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What makes it worse is this, from a press release by the Wildlife Conservation Society: "Recent surveys by WCS had previously recorded red colobus in what is now Ntokou-Pikounda National Park in 2007 and 2014, but they were very rarely encountered and no photograph had been taken." So in other words, the monkey had been spotted as little as a year ago. No story here I'm afraid, just the publication of a photo. Perhaps a blurb change is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
red colobus != Bouvier's red colobus. The spotting of red colobus in general in the area is what made them think there was the possibility of this specific species also being there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Then publish away, but the news is the publication of the photo, not the discovery which was announced by the people that "re-discovered" it in March. There has been no third-party confirmation of it, other than the few press people just publishing the photo and relating to the Indiegogo crowd-sourcing. It was "re-discovered in March". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Your alt is a reasonable suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Bouvier's red colobus is the species of red colobus that is living in that area, so the sightings in 2007 and 2014 were the from the "rediscovered" species. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

RD: Francis George[edit]

Article: Francis George
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post Reuters Time
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: According to the Washington Post link above, George "became a leading figure of his era in many of the most important events in the American church." Everymorning talk 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD pending article improvements Does appear to meet RD, but the article's sourcing is in very poor shape. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose He was one of 17 Cardinals in a country where only 6% of all members of his church are living, and he was not elevated to Cardinal Bishop or otherwise more important in the Vatican than an average Cardinal. Is every single of the currently 223 Catholic Cardinals eligible for RD when he dies? What about other churches? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per LoveToLondon; I'm not clear on which RD criteria is being met here. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with LoveToLondon, I would only give rd to Cardinal Bishops, unless cardinal in question have accomplished something really special. SeraV (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we really would need some grand encomium from outside the Church to justify this. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose important to what field? Weakly sourced article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just a retired functionary. Nothing special about him. Abductive (reasoning) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose little notability outside Roman Catholicism. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think anyone is suggesting that every Cardinal would qualify for RD. But Cardinal George was a long-serving archbishop of a very large diocese and a highly influential figure in the Catholic Church in his country. He played an influential role - at the international, not just the national, level - in the Church's response to the sexual abuse crisis. He lead its opposition to the Affordable Care Act. It's a close call, but on balance I think he is important enough to meet the criteria. I would add that I am bemused by the suggestion that Cardinal Bishops, unlike other Cardinals, should qualify for RD. They tend to Vatican bureaucrats, some of questionable importance - I wouldn't be inclined to support Roger Etchegaray or José Saraiva Martins for RD. I'd say Cardinal George was a higher-profile figure and had a bigger impact than either of them. Neljack (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • With 2.3 million Catholics being less than half the size of the largest diocese in the US, I am bemused to hear Chicago being called "very large". What was his influential role in the non-US part of the sexual abuse crisis? The article does not contain any sourced facts why and how he was influential in that. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

RD: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri[edit]

Article: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Many Not sure which of these aren't notable.
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Note: A good old B class article

Nominator's comments: Iraqi general and a commander of the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order. He was an Iraqi military commander and was Vice Chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, until the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Wait? The news articles state his death is claimed but not affirmed? (I'm not sure on RD appropriateness yet, article seems okay, but just would like better confirmation on news). --MASEM (t) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until we know he has been killed; I'm also uncertain on if he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, but post for sure if confirmed. This guy is/was the highest ranking survivor of the Saddam Hussein regime and a major player in ISIS. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose that he wasn't hanged with Saddam is no accomplishment. These people know that they will live by the sword until they die by the sword. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficient quality, major news sources are reporting the death prominently. --Jayron32 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A poor quality article is an established reason for opposition. Since when is a good quality article itself a reason for meeting any of the ITN criteria? Since when is "bing hits" an RS? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:ITN says, under the section titled Purpose says, "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Nowhere does it say "We should avoid posting subjects because we find what they did abhorrant". Highlighting quality content on stuff that recently happened is the primary purpose of ITN, regardless of for what reason that content is in the news. Even if it's because the person who died was a really bad person. --Jayron32 00:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I get that, and he was evil, but the idea is to nominate good articles about notable figures. This guy is about as important in the end as the third biggest drug dealer in Chicago, so regardless of my side comments, I contest the notability/accomplishment requirement. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, he was the mastermind behind all resistance to the US since the collapse of the Iraqi government in 2003. Think of him as the head of state for a country the size of Belgium. Abductive (reasoning) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait at least until the kill is confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for DNA analysis. $US 10 million bounty is notable.-- Aronzak (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until this is confirmed via DNA tests. Jusdafax 18:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

[Closed] RD: Stanislav Gross[edit]


Consensus is to not post this based on lack of notability and article quality. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Article: Stanislav Gross
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Czech lawyer and former politician who was Prime Minister of the Czech Republic from 2004 to 2005. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the quality of the article. The article focuses predominately on scandals and accusations and doesn't seem to me to provide a balanced and reasonable account of Gross's life. Would need a fair bit of work to bring it up to standard. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD. The implication of importance by the article, even given the time he served as PM, seems trivial and unremarkable in contrast to what I would expect to see from an important world/national leader. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and merits; article states that he did very little as PM and held the office for a short time, not long enough to have an impact. As such, does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Youngest EU PM ever, died at 45 of rare disease, scandal-plagued administration, certainly more interesting than a former Waffen SS member. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment He is not the youngest EU PM ever. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nor is he the youngest Waffen SS Member! (Who is the youngest EU PM ever?) Still quite notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. An orange tag up top since November 2013, and the abysmally short quality are unworthy of a former head of state. I am of a mind to suggest that it needs attention from an expert, between the near-total lack of references and the overall tone of the article, as Bcp67 indicated above. The history of this particular PM reminds me of American Pres. Warren G. Harding - who also died abruptly, but from circumstances that were much less clear back in 1923. Challenger l (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment He never was Head of State. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh. I REALLY had the wrong end of the stick then. I apologize. If he wasn't a head of state either - then I don't see how he fits RD at all. Challenger l (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A fair question is that is the PM in Czech a more decorative title (the true power in a different body of the government) or is it truly the head of the executive branch? I don't know, but I know an RD in the last 6-some months this was a point of difference for at least one person. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • PM is never a decorative title, Head of State is often a purely decorative title. People like David Cameron and Angela Merkel are not Head of State. It would be hard to find a more powerless person in politics than the Head of State of the UK, who even has some of her speeches written by the PM. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, weak oppose on notability. Some claims above are simply false. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 15[edit]

RD: Surya Bahadur Thapa[edit]

Article: Surya Bahadur Thapa
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hindu The Himalayan Times
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Note: Just a hell lot of orange tags

Nominator's comments: Five times Nepal Prime minister -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support if article is drastically improved: He obviously meets notability criteria, having been a major political force and leader in Nepal for half a century. But the state of the article is appalling. Forget that it still refers to its recently dead subject in the present tense; it has a well-deserved orange tag at the top because it has literally six citations, two of which are duplicates and two of which were just added as references for his death. I'd like to help out with this, but I honestly don't know where to start. Almost every single claim in the article is completely unreferenced; it's a gaping BLP violation, and we're talking about somebody who has been a household name for generations in a country of nearly 30 million people, a five-time world leader, and a respected elder statesman in South Asia. What a shame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with significant article improvements - RD is clear, but oh man. That article fails BLP with nearly no sourcing at all. This needs serious work to get it to a state RD can use. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality Clearly notable and suitable for RD, but the article needs a lot of work first. If and when improved (I don't have the knowledge on the subject to do it myself), Support. (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notability and strong oppose quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality - it's a real nightmare. Barely any references and the lead is barely even there. Absolutely notable enough for RD, but it needs a LOT of work. Another article that needs attention from an expert, I'd say. Challenger l (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per those above. Hopefully someone will take some time to address the sad state of the article, though. Connormah (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The rules say that the article must be satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect, and comply with the WP:BLP rules. Not, "the article must not even have a single citation needed or cleanup tag". A political leader of this fellow's stature is important enough that his omission would seem random. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Aaron Hernandez found guilty of murder[edit]

Overwhelming consensus not to post, risk of certain posters turning things nasty, so closing. Fgf10 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated article: Aaron Hernandez
Blurb: Former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez is found guilty of first-degree murder in the murder of Odin Lloyd.
News source(s): CNN Reuters BBC The Guardian
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Has been a high-profile trial for some time now, and this verdict is getting news coverage from around the world. Everymorning talk 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Murder trial that received some press but only because the guilty party (glad I can type that) is a professional athlete. That doesn't make this rise to the level of importance for ITN. Then again, Oscar Pistorius was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is also an article on the murder. Link that? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I have added the murder article to the blurb. Everymorning talk 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Pistorius was posted, and by that standard, Hernandez should be posted, too. But I don't like that standard, and I don't like ITN being used as Page Six for celebrity court dramas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Of note, the only standard is "Do we post this article now for <reasons>." The posting or non-posting of any article in the past for any reason does not qualify or disqualify this article for any reason. We judge every article suggestion on it's own merits every time, regardless of what has, or has not, been done in the past. --Jayron32 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Muboshgu (I don't believe we should have posted Pistorius either). If we are going to post, some of his sporting career could be sourced better, and a anti-proseline purge in discussion of the trial events would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Weak oppose Pistorius was a whole different batch of cookies. He was an international Olympic athlete (I think), not an American "footballer", and Pistorius IMO generated alot more international media coverage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I believe that if Pistorius wasn't an amputee he wouldn't have been so newsworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as per EoRdE6's reasoning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pistorius is a Paralympic medallist, Hernandez played in the NFL and was not as internationally known as say his teammate Tom Brady. The Pistorius trial also gained attention for the prospects of an amputee being imprisoned, and also much was said about whether it was murder and manslaughter due to his mental condition. That kind of special attention hasn't been given to this case. I was largely unaware of the ins-and-outs of this case although BBC Sport put up main stories from US sport, including a recent baseball doping ban which one would think is less notable than murder '''tAD''' (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the points above. The only reason this rates major news coverage is that he was a former NFL player. This is legitimate news in New England. Outside of that area it's tabloid news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support we're a good, comprehensive neutral source where readers will be looking. Comparisons to pistorius sound eltist and biased. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if we posted Pistorius we should by all rationale thinking post this as well. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd agree with the assessment of The Almightey Drill. Aaron Hernandez is not widely regarded as a "face" of the NFL, in spite of the inherent fame that being a football player carries in the USA. Peyton Manning (or on the other side of the ocean, Lionel Messi) being charged with murder would be a bigger deal simply because of his media presence. This case also does not bear inherent controversy as the O.J. Simpson trial did, which surely would have been posted if ITN existed back then. By the way, I feel that it should be mentioned that any story that gets posted on BBC or Reuters is, by definition, not "tabloid news". --WaltCip (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Your last statement isn't correct. The Jeremy Clarkson sacking was front page BBC and other big news outlets but was quickly rejected as tabloid news... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess there is a regional difference in the definition of the term "tabloid", which I understand to mean a gossip newspaper such as The Globe or National Enquirer.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this is that similar to the Pistorius case; Hernandez was a member of a team, not in an individual sport, aside from the already-stated fact that Pistorius was an Olympic athlete and famous for his circumstances(not having feet). Nothing was particularly notable about this case other than the defendant. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Murder convictions, even well publicized ones, are unfortunately very common in the U.S. Just because it involves someone famous doesn't make it earth shattering news. Aerospeed (Talk) 21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • All Star player, $40 million contract, and the fact that they don't have Olympic American Football is a reason to omit him? As an individual he was obviously at the top of his field. The man's admittedly not of Dutch descent, but he's a world class athlete convicted of a capital crime and facing two more such charges. The only reason not to post him seems to be that this is what we expect from American minorities. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the first handful of arguments here are not particularly productive. We are not a court system, so don't follow and are not bound by precedent here. I'm not sure how the racism accusation came in, but that's probably definitely not the case. Mamyles (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hernandez's race is completely irrelevant to me, and as far as I can see at the moment, most everyone else on this page. I think the racism arguments have no foundation at all. Hernandez is not a disabled NFL player, unlike Pistorius in track. He was also part of a team, unlike Pistorius. Hernandez also did not have international attention, unlike Pistorius(and even former teammate Tom Brady).331dot (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This conviction doesn't seem to have any more impact than if the player retired or was critically injured. It does have some shock factor, that an individual so many people revered would be so violent, but I would consider that closer to tabloid news. And, for consideration of balance, we've already had many sports blurbs recently. Additionally, his article is close but not quite updated to the quality I would like to see for posting. The yellow-level tag about prose is a great suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pistorius was an Olympian, albeit a paralympian who won gold in 3 Paralympic games, Hernandez played american football, a sport that no one gives a second look at outside of the US..there is no comparison here..OJ Simpson qualifies cause he was famous as an actor as well..Aaron Hernandez does not....that said, this is a news item in the Portal for American Football and thats it..--Stemoc 05:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we're not a tabloid. People get convicted of murder every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why are we even debating this? Run of the mill murder case, neither the victim or the perpetrator were particularly well know. Medeis' arguments are deeply insulting and just plain ridiculous. Just snowclose it. Fgf10 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, just a run of the mill murder case, not news-worthy. Calling other editors racist is deeply insulting. Fgf10 (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
To refer to the willfull taking of a human life as "run of the mill" is deeply insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, whatever. Not relevant for the nomination. Fgf10 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You were just claiming it is relevant, now you're claiming it's not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, whether or not calling this run of the mill is insulting or not is irrelevant, not that fact that it is run of the mill, which is relevant. Keep up. Fgf10 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Which source has called this murder "run of the mil"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You should report any racist comments to WP:ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no racist comments were made, just Medeis accusing people of being racist. As for referring her to ANI, I'd do it if I though it would do any good... Anyway, closing this as it's not going to go. Fgf10 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
And then you could be challenged for your casual attitude towards murder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

RD: Homaro Cantu[edit]

Updated article: Homaro Cantu
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2][3]
Nominator and updater: ThaddeusB (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Article will need significant work, which I will start later today

Nominator's comments: Surprise death of one of the world's most famous chefs and a leading figure in the rise of molecular gastronomyThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The death is unusual, but I'm worried about the lack of recognition; I'm not seeing things I would associate with importance in culinary skills like Michalin stars or other awards. If it is only a leader in the molecular gasotromony, that's too fine a subset of chefs in general. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said the article is in poor shape... Moto is considered one of the nation's top restaurants and one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend. It is definitely Michelin starred and has been for some time. Trust me, among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that can be added and sourced, then yes, I would support this as RD. (I don't think him of having enough of a household name presence to merit a blurb like with did with Robin Williams, but assuming the sourcing above, RD for sure). --MASEM (t) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, our coverage of chefs is very poor in general (no idea why). Take Joël Robuchon, the most Michelin starred chef in the world. Even his article is only start quality. The MG article article has like 2 paragraphs about everything that has been since 2000 - and the genre was basically just getting started in 2000... Anyway, improving Cantu's article will be my top priority today, regardless of any decision made here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

*Wait: I'm willing to trust and see what ThaddeusB comes up with, even though I'm not seeing a case for RD inclusion right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support after update. I don't know he was at the very top of his field, but he does at least seem to have been notable and his death was unusual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD There doesn't seem to be much frontpage reporting in international media of his death, so the claim he was a "superstar" is clearly overblown - he was no Paul Bocuse and no Hervé This. ThaddeusB also made the incorrect claim "one of the nation's top restaurants" - Moto (restaurant) says with source In 2012, Forbes Magazine ranked Moto #44 on its list of "The 100 Best US Restaurants.", and having only one Michelin star implies that a restaurant is worse than the over 400 restaurants worldwide that have more than one star (there are over 2000 restaurants that have at least one star). In Chicago Moto is one of 24 restaurants with at least one Michelin star, and not even one of the 5 best restaurants in Chicago that have more than one Michelin star. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify, when I say "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" I mean other chefs considered him to be such. That does not necessarily translate into fame among the general public or Michelin stars. He was known for innovation first, and food second. And in that regard, he was the at the top... No serious foodie would say something as silly as "all 2 Michelin star restaurants are better than all 1 Michelin star restaurants" or even that only starred restaurants matter. Cantu was important because he along with Grant Achatz and Graham Elliot made Chicago into the place to go to innovative food. Any chef wishing to follow that trend - and many, many have - looked up the those three. There are hundreds of Michelin starred chefs that have minimal impact on the culinary world - Cantu had a large one.
I do apologize about calling Moto one of the top restaurants in the country, though. You are correct that it is usually "only" ranked in the top 50 or so. I was actually thinking of Alinea (Achatz's restaurant), which is routinely top 5-10, so did slightly overstate that point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So your claim "one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend" is in reality "one of top 3 MG restaurants in Chicago".
Compared to Grant Achatz he was not even the most renowned molecular gastromony chef in Chicago, and being one of the best 3 molecular gastromony chefs in Chicago is a quite strange definition for "superstar". The real superstar in molecular gastromony who is not defined by having a restaurant with Michelin stars is Hervé This. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said at all. I said chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field. Michelin stars do not measure impact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What position in what field exactly, and what RS do you have to back this up? E.g. top 10 in molecular gastromony in the world would make him a medium-important person in a pretty small field. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, everything I wrote is my personal opinion based on my knowledge of the gourmet food world (following it is a hobby of mine). I was unaware that we are now supposed to start all ITN comments with "In my opinion..." As far as RS coverage/opinion goes, I will let the article speak for itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It also speaks for itself that you have no RS to backup your claims like "chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field" and "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" - no non-US sources in the article, no sources from the field of cooking in the article, and no sources in the article that relevant people in the field of molecular gastronomy like Ferran Adrià or Heston Blumenthal said he was a superstar. You already admitted that your attempts to inflate the importance of Moto were incorrect, and the rest of your claims are also not based on verifiable facts. LoveToLondon (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for your false and unfair personal attacks against me. Please do not ascribe motive or admission of guilt. I made a simple mistake about Moto's rank (top 50 instead of top 10). I stand behind everything else I wrote. You disagree with my assessment and that is perfect fine, but when you attempt to paint me as purposefully deceitful, you cross a line. Believe it or not, two people can have a different opinion w/o one being dishonest. Geez.
I would say the article already backs up my claims. No it doesn't use the exact words "superstar" - but the idea is there including from Adrià. If you had bothered to read carefully, you would see Adrià is mentioned and if you wanted to see his exact words all you had to do was click through to the source.... I'm sorry your view sources such as The New York Times as unreliable and would have prefered food sources such as Gourmet magazine. These sources do exist, I just haven't used them (yet). International sources exist as well. Do not confuse lack of use for lack of existence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between someone being good in his field and respected by other people in his field, and someone being considered a superstar which you repeatedly claimed without bringing any RS for that claim. We are not discussing personal opinions, we are discussing verifiable information. In the source Adrià is saying that Cantu is good, which is lightyears away from saying he is a superstar.
The few international sources that covered his death tend to describe his main achievement as "worked for Charlie Trotter". LoveToLondon (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies, but I was not able to get the article up to par in one night - I will continue work tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Article is now updated and in good shape. I will likely work on it more, but it is in good enough shape to assess Cantu's merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, a follow-up story on Cantu's death appeared on the front page (i.e. A1) of today's New York Times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Ready] 2015 Libya migrant shipwreck[edit]

Article: 2015 Libya migrant shipwreck
Blurb: About 400 people are feared to have drowned after their vessel capsized off Libya.
Alternative blurb: 144–150 people have been rescued from vessel shipwreck off Libya.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC
Nominator and updater: AntanO (give credit)
Other updaters: !dea4u (give credit)

Nominator's comments: About 400 people are feared to have died or missing since Monday, 13 April AntanO 14:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, pending slight expansion. Looks like one of the largest migrant shipwrecks in terms of reported casualties. Brandmeistertalk 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, while a large number of potential deaths, it is also case these are migrants and we have skipped on previous migrant shipwrecks in the past. Article could be expanded but fine as a current developing event for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Weak Support, one of the largest migrant shipwrecks yes, but the article requires quite a bit of expansion, and the casualties figures are all just estimated right now. You also might want to add something about the backlash the EU is getting to the actual article EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I considered nominating this yesterday, but decided it was best to wait for more details to emerge. The casualty figure is evidently a guess by a couple rescued immigrants and is far from official. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: These tragedies are very sadly frequent, and elevate during the European summer. Not to say that I oppose its inclusion, but things have been previously opposed on the standard of "unfortunate, but that happens all the time" '''tAD''' (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once details are more certain. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Operation Mare Nostrum should be its own article, this shipwreck has similarities to the 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck -- Aronzak (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a big casualty of Human Race & must be brought forward. Most of the details are certain as news are getting updated by agencies.( !dea4u  11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC))
  • Support – If I heard correctly on the news Wednesday, some 20,000 people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe in this century. (Can this be right?) Not a minor problem. Sca (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • And we've not posted any of the previous issues with migrant fatalities like these wrecks before. People using any means necessary to flee into Europe is common enough and because they will take any risk, these deaths happen. I'm sure numbers of the same kind can be found for people crossing the Mexican border to the US or trying to cross over from Cuba to the US and drowning along the way. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending further details. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - as the immigration issue continues to be a headline (today's headline is 15 immigrants being charged with murder for throwing 12 others overboard and 40+ others dying in an unrelated sinking), I don't really think we should be highlighting the sinking of 400 in isolation. If we post something, I feel it should be the waves of people arriving (10,000 in the last week), which is being described as an "immigration crisis". In that context, 400 dying is, sadly, perfectly ordinary - an estimated 3,200 died last year in crossing attempts. So the real story is the rise in attempts. An article such as Immigration to Italy would be a better target for the general story. [4][5] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You are taking the issue as a whole, whereas this is a single incident, apparently one of the deadliest, if not the deadliest incident so far involving migrants crossing the Mediterranean (more deadly than 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck, for example). I'm not sure how to reflect that in Ongoing, so posting shipwrecks of such scale would improve our coverage. If the same number of people dies on a capsizing passenger ship, we would almost certainly post that. Brandmeistertalk 08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but capsized passenger ships are not a daily occurrence. Immigrant drownings are - nearly 10/day last year and more this year. Yes, this one is higher in number than average, but that is the only thing notable about it. And with more people trying this year, it is inevitable that more will die. I am not against posting exactly (hence my "comment", not "oppose"), but feel it needs to be put into context. This is not a freak disaster, but rather the outcome of more and more immigrants risking their lives to get to Italy. The comparison Masem made above about drownings in the Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico is apt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: I added the altblurb. --George Ho (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the death toll is dropping as we speak. Basically yet another transportation accident. We don't need headlines that are estimates couched in euphemisms. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not feel the article is ready as it still lacks any background information for context. I am opposed to posting in the current form, but could support posting the disaster article ~two background paragraphs are added to explain 1) the commonness of migrants dying in similar disasters (3200 in the last year) and 2) the recent rise in the number of immigrants. Without that information, the article is incomplete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see so many rationalization to reject on ITN. So, lets close and do other business. --AntanO 13:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment given another sinking in the Med today with around 700 migrants on board, several hundred of whom are believed to have died, this stuff shouldn't be missing from our ITN section. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the new loss of 700 hundred lives, compared with 400 in this incident, mean that "this stuff" should be replaced by a new article and ITN entry? Or should the existing article be expanded and the blurb adjusted accordingly? Otherwise there is some room for reader confusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when articles are created - a no-brainer. The blurb should now be something like Over 1000 people are feared to have drowned after two vessels capsized between Libya and Italy in separate incidents. When the articles exist, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nokia plans to acquire Alcatel-Lucent[edit]

Updated articles: Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent
Blurb: Nokia announces plans to buy telecommunications equipment maker Alcatel-Lucent for €15.6 billion (US$16.6 billion).
News source(s): The Verge, BBC, Reuters, New York Times
Nominator: EoRdE6 (give credit)
Updater: ViperSnake151 (give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Big merger of two well known, high value companies. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - We need to feature more business news and this is an excellent opportunity to do so - huge merger of two well known companies with international reach. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on news - I agree we should be posting large mergers when both companies have announced their agreement to complete such actions, and $16B is not something to sneeze at, but I do note ITN has been resistant to posting theses, so I'm hesistant about breaking tradition. On the article quality, Nokia's is fine but there's problems with Alcatel - the R&D section is mostly unsourced, and I'm worried on the sourcing of that timeline (it has a formatting that screams possible copyvios issues though I can't find anything immediately). --MASEM (t) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nokia officially announced the merger, but two companies haven't merged yet. George Ho (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That's true, so it's slightly WP:CRYSTAL? But, as with most company mergers, I suspect there won't be any new "announcement" when it actually happens (and it might happen over weeks or months?) So it will be missed. Or were you suggesting a delay in posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes we are aware of that and that is why the blurb says "Nokia announces merger". As with all big company mergers this is probably the only time it will be all over the news. Small updates will envitably pop up, but the big part here is that the merger has been confirmed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Martin & EoEdE6 are correct, the time mergers are in the news is when they are announced. The legal completion receives a brief mention in business papers at most. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support agreeing with Masem's analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Opppose for impact. Nokia, once the largest cellphone manufacurer in the world, now makes almost nothing, and A-L branding is purely regional. I could get behind posting more business news, so long as the business news is something other than "small-to-mid sized merger occurs". Also, the first news of this broke, I think, on Monday. (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You're objecting because Nokia "makes almost nothing"? i.e. because it's not "a manufacturer"? It had a net profit last year of €1.17 billion, so it must be doing something right? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Two of the four biggest companies in telecommunications equipment are merging, with a combined revenue of over 25 billion Euro. Cellphones are irrelevant for the impact - none of the companies involved is manufacturing cellphones at the moment. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How is this nomination "ready"? We've pointed out the problems of the nomination. Are flaws badly sourced or something or lacking influence? --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose just because of the practical issue that a given proportion of mergers that get announced never actually happen for one reason or another. Formerip (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Support as LoveToLondon pointed out this is a big deal and 25B€ isn't something to just skip over. 2606:A000:1408:214C:A82D:482D:9AFF:4C92 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Posted - A few people would prefer to wait until the merger is complete - that is a valid position to take, but is in the minority here. The remaining oppose makes a nonsensical argument about Nokia being a small company and can be ignored. Overall, there is a clear consensus on notability and a reasonably clear consensus to post now. Alcatel's article could indeed be improved, but since it is not a bold link that is not a factor holding back posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How come I don't see it? And should the image be swapped with File:NSN headquarters.JPG? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Now appeared. But Günter is now four items down, leaving his image a bit stranded? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The current wording looks WP:CRYSTAL-ish, suggest swapping to "Nokia agrees to buy..." per linked section or something similar. Brandmeistertalk 16:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wording adjusted. I will swap out the picture later today if there are no objections--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The Nokia headquarter is pretty unknown, and there is anyway not much you see at that image size. What about File:Nokia wordmark.svg? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That's possible, but also pretty boring... Any other opinions about which image, if any, to use? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would say a picture of an old classic Nokia phone that prominately displays the logo, but that might be a bit off topic given the news it is referring too. I'm just browsing through the pretty big c:Category:Nokia. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stay away from former Nokia products like rubber boots, mobile phones and car tyres that are now part of completely separate companies. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
They may not anymore, but they were once the worlds largest vendor of mobile phones, and though the branding is being phased out, one can still go to a store and buy a nokia branded device. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
One can still go to a store and buy a Nokian branded tyre. Displaying a tyre or a phone would be stupid since it has nothing to do with the businesses Nokia is operating in today - and nothing with the business this merger is about. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Am quite prepared to stay away from rubber boots, mobile phones and car tyres, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

[Posted] Cuba removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism[edit]

Updated article: State Sponsors of Terrorism
Blurb: President Obama removes Cuba from the United States' list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.
Alternative blurb: President Barack Obama moves to remove Cuba from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism amid diplomatic efforts to improve relations between the two countries.
News source(s): ABC News NY Times BBC
Nominator and updater: Imzadi1979 (give credit)

Article updated

 Imzadi 1979  19:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support the story, oppose the article quality. The tag says it all, too much reliance on massive quotations and not much encyclopaedic treatment of the subject matter at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - article quality can be improved.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec)Support on the merits. This seems a notable step in US-Cuba relations. This is just breaking so it will need time to be adequately updated. I would wonder if the target article should be Cuba–United States relations instead of the state sponsored terrorism list(which can still be linked). 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel there is a better point in regards to the ongoing discussions between US and Cuba that is clearly an ITN entry, no question, I'm just not sure if this is it or not. (For example, if these talks will lead to the end of the United States embargo against Cuba, which I think more sources see as the big event.) It is not that this is important but it may not be the most important results of these discussions. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'd be tempted to strike while the iron is hot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Just reading a bit more, I do think this might be the right moment, language being said implies the terrorism factor is one aspect, there's still issues US has with Cuba, etc. But I am only throwing this out there in case. It would be nice in the blurb to reflect that this is an outcome of the current discussions. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading some more I see that this move by Obama apparently starts a 45 day period before the removal actually occurs(see NY Times article) and gives Congress a chance to block it. Should we wait until the removal actually happens? We tend to do that with most other postings(i.e post when it happens and not just the announcement). 331dot (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'd tend to agree given the current political climate (election year-buildup politicking already going on). --MASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    And this page claims that Congress does not need to approve. Kinda confusing. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Odd, our political system. :/ But it does suggest that there still remains a 45 day waiting period before it is removed, even if the President can do it on his own volition. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - An alternate target for the bold link is Cuba–United States relations if that is easier to improve. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We also seem to have Cuban Thaw which I put in my suggested blurb(which I invite changes to). 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Cuban Thaw is probably the best target of the three options, as it gives the decision context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose bizarre internal policy issue, akin to Nixon official removing someone from his enemies list. We don't even post most actual legislation--and this is just an executive order. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's a little more complicated than that. The state sponsors of terror designation was created by Congress and comes with automatic legal sanctions for any nation on the list. The US Secretary of State was tasked by Congress with maintaining the list subject to a variety of provisions. It is certainly more than just a private enemies list. Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. My main concern is that the change hasn't happened yet, but rather a process has started that will lead to the removal in 45 days (unless Congress intervenes with a veto-proof majority). Seems like it would be better to post when this news when/if Cuba is actually removed. Dragons flight (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose given that there will be a 45 day wait as well as a chance(if small) that it will be blocked by Congress(which I guess is different than approval). Unlike many announcements I think there will be some news about this when it actually happens. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait In the BBC, Rubio explicitly condemned this - wait and see what Rand Paul says, and whether this will play into the Republican primary. Republicans will try to veto it in Congress if they universally oppose it. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    That's not how Congress works. Under the law, Republicans would need to cobble together veto-proof majorities to override a presidential veto of any resolution of disapproval. All sources agree the odds of that are virtually nonexistent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think we definitely need something about US-Cuba relations, but it's likely to be one of those situations where there is no really big moment but a long string of small stories, spread over months. So I'd be in favour of a blurb that covers the general thaw in US-Cuba relations, with this change as the event to hang it on. GoldenRing (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant warming in a famously frosty relationship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support positive diplomatic news are a change of pace around here. Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait The thaw in Cuban-American relations is definitely ITN worthy. But I would put it all in one post when formal diplomatic relations are restored and ambassadors are exchanged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That is many years off, and can be posted at that time. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, the water is the ice-jammed river is now flowing, the definition of a thaw. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per extreme POV. I don't think we should ever consider posting changes to a highly subjective list of a single country that includes countries that apparently do not comply within its future plans and geostrategy. It might have been worth supporting had this been a legitimate list adopted by the United Nations or any other impartial international organisation. If you really think that we should post something about the Cuba–United States relations, there are other ways to do it such like signing of diplomatic agreements, engaging in joint economic programmes, opening the air transport, etc.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - There is a consensus that the Cuban Thaw should be posted at some point. There is some disagreement about when to post, but several of those who prefer to wait express that their preference is only mild making an overall consensus that now is an acceptable point. The quality of the Cuban Thaw article is acceptable, so it will be the bold link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The wording change is a smart move (to point out that Obama is moving to remove) addressing the 45 day issue noted above. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Late Support. Thank you, ThaddeusB. Happy news and with luck part of Congress starting to get along with the administration. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Howard Stern to be featured on David Letterman's last shows[edit]

No offense to the nominator who made this in good faith, but this will not gain consensus be posted so I see little reason for this to continue. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Proposed image
Article to update: Howard Stern

Blurb: Howard Stern will be featured as a guest on David Letterman's final shows.
News source(s): Daily News
Nominator: Sterngleek (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I feel this is newsworthy. Sterngleek (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thanks for the nomination, but the announcement of a guest isn't anywhere close to the importance we usually require for ITN items. I may support posting when the last Letterman show airs, but this really isn't much of anything. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose celebrity A to appear on celebrity B's show? Even the Boat Race is more significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but I agree that a mere guest announcement does not merit inclusion into ITN. Merely being newsworthy(if that's even the case here) isn't sufficient; I would suggest that Sterngleek review the criteria and perhaps past nominations to get an idea of what may merit posting. Suggest SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Celebrity news. Nothing here ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Once Letterman's show comes to an end, it could merit a mention. He's been an American TV fixture for several decades. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Percy Sledge[edit]

Updated article: Percy Sledge
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Masem (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Article has some CN tags and could use some sourcing improvement

Nominator's comments: Noted pioneer artist in the R&B genre (received an lifetime award for this), also inducted into R&R Hall of Fame. MASEM (t) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Really, his chief claim to fame is for When a Man Loves a Woman (song), though he had other charting hits (Ain't No Sunshine...). On the other hand, his version of the song charted in multiple decades, and so have covers. Multiple hall of fame honors. Found one CN template in the article, which I replaced with a source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Hall of fame, aint no sunshine, etc etc... --BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable artist, excellent candidate for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - sufficiently notable person, article in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Miyagawa (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Miyagawa. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Referencing issues at time I made nom have been addressed. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Blackwater Baghdad shootings[edit]

Oh the weather outside is frightful, but the fire is so delightful, and since we've no place to go... --Jayron32 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Article to update: Blackwater Baghdad shootings
Blurb: ​Ex-Blackwater guards get life, 30-year sentences for Baghdad massacre.
News source(s): USA TODAY
Nominator: Ednabeady (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Part of 'War on Terror' which is still not finished. Ednabeady (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, however, the blurb should include the conviction of 3 others with 30yr terms. Also, the blurb should link to the shooting page. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly based on the quality of the nomination. Put some work into it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a three sentence update in two years? μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article has few updates. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose many people get many long sentences for murdering others. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not updated and weak on notability at best. Not seeing extensive news coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note for new editors: Was a WP:SNOW close. Mamyles (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 13[edit]

RD: Herb Trimpe[edit]

Article: Herb Trimpe
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IBT NYP
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Nominator's comments: American comic book artist and occasional writer, best known as the seminal 1970s artist on The Incredible Hulk and as the first artist to draw for publication the character Wolverine -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose not convinced this individual is one of the greatest comic book artists in the field, I'm not seeing many notable awards for instance, but open to being convinced. Article is in reasonable state (need to fix "present"), although the text add about his death is somewhat perfunctory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As TRM states, while within the field there was a lot of tributes, he was far from the leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When I first heard of his passing, I genuinely considered him for RD - now, as then, I find his article and notability sadly lacking. Yes, he was the first artist to draw Wolverine. I'm not sure he's influential or terribly notable in his field, aside from that single point. I understand completely why he would be nominated, but I don't think he quite meets the bar. Challenger l (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian wildfires[edit]

Updated article: 2015 Russian wildfires
Blurb: Wildfires in Southern Siberia, Russia kill at least 33 people and damage more than 1,400 homes.
News source(s): [6][7][8]
Nominator and updater: ThaddeusB (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An unusually high death/damage toll for a disaster of this nature. Article work is ongoing. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • support - unusal for this part of the world. extensive damage and deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and the article has acceptable quality. Brandmeistertalk 09:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable and more-than half-decent article condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unusual and significant event. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support On both event + article quality. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Liquid water found on Mars[edit]

No consensus to post this at this time. From these comments it seems it isn't clear enough whether water as been found, or evidence of water. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Article to update: Water on Mars
Blurb: Martian rover Curiosity finds liquid water beneath Mars's surface.
Alternative blurb: Martian rover Curiosity finds strong evidence of liquid water beneath Mars's surface.
News source(s): The Guardian BBC
Nominator: JoshuaKGarner (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Potentially groundbreaking discovery regarding extraterrestrial human colonization. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The header is not exactly correct; the BBC states that "evidence" of liquid water was found, not liquid water itself. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As 331dot points out, this is not assurance of water, just strong evidence water likely existed. Which is I think at least the 2nd time this has been shown. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mars has liquid water just below its surface, according to new measurements by Nasa’s Curiosity rover" looks like a pretty categorical statement? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not proof there is water, just that the probability there is very high (It's a theory, not proven). They have not been able to directly sample the water (and verify those findings) at which point that would be a clear ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
yeah, I guess this nom is a saddening bore, 'coz I've seen it ten times or more. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Point of order. It's a hypothesis. Theories (at least the ones we use) are all proven. Hypothesis is the word you're scrambling for. --Jayron32 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is unlikely definite proof will arise in the forseeable future - that would require a Martian mining effort. If it really the second time strong evidence has arisen (do you have a citation for that), that is a valid point, but the request for definitive proof is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the story I'm thinking of is this one [9] but it might have been other discoveries. And this are ones that showed that there were some water molecules in the rocks, as well as some methane suggesting the possibility of life. But with this new discovery, all they are saying is that the temperature in the Martial soil, for a sufficiently thick enough region, is at the right conditions where liquid water could be retained. Very important towards pushing on human exploration of the planet, but I don't think this is groundbreaking as the headlines are making out. (including headlines that are getting it wrong, though knowing headlines are not written by the article writers themselves). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor point of clarification since you said "existed", but the claim is about evidence that liquid water exists on Mars in the present, and not merely in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The optimal target is if there is a good quantity of water on the planet already that could be used to support a colony and reduce the weight of carrying it from Earth to Mars, as well as study a planet which had, at one point, the conditions sufficient to support life. They have found water molecules as part of rock samples, but nothing like a pool of water; they've also shown the water found is of different isotopic distribution as one would expect, which they've used to argue about when (if there was) water on the planet likely evaporated. This specific story says that water pools could have readily existed in the right temperature regions within Mars' soil (and may perhaps still exist if they could dig deeper), but not that they exist, presently. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "evidence" of water is OLD news. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I am not sure how you guys are glad to post every single terrorist event around the world, but you find actual human progress as "old news". Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] RD: Eduardo Galeano[edit]

Article: Eduardo Galeano
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News The Guardian
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Note: Article has an orange "ref improve" tag on the top, so more citations need to be added before this can be posted.

Nominator's comments: Described by the Guardian and the Associated Press as a leading voice in the Latin American left. AP obituary (first link above) says that his book ""The Open Veins of Latin America" became a classic text for the left in the region [i.e. Latin America]..." Everymorning talk 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements - Fair argument to importance. The "Works" section needs a LOT of citations and is almost a direct violation of quotation policy (we're paraphrasing reception about his works by named person and sources but without giving exact sourcing information). --MASEM (t) 17:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose appalling article, no real obvious idea how he is significant in his field, a single award from Sweden. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Per countering systemic ITN bias against literature, art and intellectual life (and Latin America).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Countering systemic bias means that this person meets the RD criteria but is not posted due to such bias; please indicate which RD criteria is met here and in what way. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No that is not what systemic bias means. Systemic bias means that white boys who like sports or war can be sure that their interests are represented whereas people with other interests, particularly those that take slightly more mental effort to appreciate, cannot. This encapsulates the general day to day workings of ITN perfectly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So you decline to answer my question? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A vote with no substance. We don't just vote with our hearts here, start using your head please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Whereas voting with your ass is perfectly acceptible?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. Perhaps you, as the expert, could answer your own question? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: He never exactly racked up awards, but he was a prolific author in a little-covered field, and certainly Open Veins of Latin America is a well-known work. As a side note on quality, I have gone through and removed some problematic sections while adding references and expanding in places. It should be of sufficient quality, or close to it, to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Voice of the left? Is this some sort of objective fact, or comparable to the Nobel Peace Prize? μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose I do not see how this man meets the RD criteria - the article really doesn't make it at all clear what impact he had or how notable he is, or was. There are some decidedly brief moments from his history listed, and literally the other half of the article is taken up by a bullet-point list of his works. If this is someone on par with the best journalists in his language, or indeed, any language - then I suggest that the article needs a LOT of attention. Challenger l (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposition withdrawn - the article seems a great deal clearer and more well-formatted now, citations seem to be in order. He seems to bave been among the most influential writers of his nation's recent history, though he has little in the way of international recognition. I think that should make him notable enough for RD, in this context. Challenger l (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Being "global soccer's pre-eminent man of letters" should alone be enough, especially when compared to other recent, more regional, inclusions like Richie Benaud, Elmer Lach and Robert H. Schuller. It is also well-referenced (certainly compared to the last two of these). --Inother (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Based on the huge influence his writings, especially Open Veins of Latin America, had on Latin American and the perception of the continent in the rest of the world. P. S. Burton (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article seems to be in good enough shape and the person is defiantly notable and at the top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per P. S. Burton. Neljack (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An important author with a decent article whose death is worthy for RD. Jusdafax 01:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is in good shape, definitely notable, politically motived oppose votes notwithstanding. (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb] RD: Günter Grass[edit]

I don't see much more point in continuing this; closing before this further degenerates into a name-calling fest. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Article: Günter Grass
Blurb: Günter Grass, Nobel laureate and author of The Tin Drum and Dog Years, dies at age 87.
Alternative blurb: Günter Grass, Nobel laureate, Waffen SS member, and author of The Tin Drum and Dog Years, dies at age 87.
News source(s): The Telegraph TG
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Nominator's comments: German novelist, poet, playwright, illustrator, graphic artist, sculptor and recipient of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Literature. He was widely regarded as Germany's most famous recently living writer. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom and article is in good shape. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, for either RD or full item in the news section. He was very significant author and activist. --Egeymi (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Thue (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull Article is woefully undersourced in terms of inline citations. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I should note I support reposting after article improvements. RD criteria clearly met. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      Where's all the indignation and accusations of "sloppiness" here then? Or are you just not worried about being consistent? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      • This one is a problem, and yes, I could go into the rapid timing with almost no discussion, but the "pull" needed to be done first. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull Quickest posting of a sub-standrd RD ever with the lowest "consensus" I've seen for a long time.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled pending article improvements. Probably not the worst article ever posted, but consensus is we can and should do better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after article update. He was a complicated great artist. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the article is well enough. Even Grass' critics will agree that he was an important personality, and that's what this here is all about. And while we possibly should, we're currently not even talking about a blurb, but about a simple RD. --PanchoS (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note As of right now, about half of the information in the article is uncited. While one or two cn tags wouldn't be a big deal, the fact that half of the information fails basic Wikipedia standards for verifiability is bad. Of course, he's a behemoth of a figure, but the main page should feature good Wikipedia work, and this is not yet it. --Jayron32 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Günter Grass, 2004.jpg
  • Support blurb. Greatest German novelist of postwar era. His Danzig Trilogy is a masterpiece. Sca (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Blurb would not be appropriate (death was of no surprise); he is not of the level of worldwide impact as Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, Masem. Long a literary figure of global significance – and not just to English- (or German-) speaking world.
"Suggested blurb:
Günter Grass, Nobel laureate, author of The Tin Drum and Dog Years, dies at age 87 in Lübeck, Germany.
(Tried sticking it into nom form above w/o success. Doh.) Sca (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb amnd RD obviously needs to be posted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Huge deal. Many news outlets choose a quote by German cultural secretary of state Grütters as a headline, stating: "his literary legacy will stand next to that of Goethe." Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb death of author by old age needs no blurb, regardless of supposed sainthood. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong Günter, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments – ... from others:
 • "Grass learned a lot from Rabelais and Celine and was influential in development of 'magic realism' and Marquez. – Orhan Pamuk (Nobel laureate)
 • "This is very sad. A true giant, inspiration, and friend." – Salman Rushdie
 • "One could argue that Günter Grass's The Tin Drum is the great novel of the 20th century ... it most completely defines the era in all its glories and catastrophes." – Darragh McManus (Guardian)
Certainly one of my favorite movies of all times... warshy (¥¥) 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 • "The Tin Drum became one of the most widely read modern European novels. – Stephen Kinzler, NYT
Sca (talk)
PS: I'd also argue that Grass's complex and occasionally controversial utterances and revelations make him even more compelling as a significant personality. Sca (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Art is uncompromising and life is full of compromises." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and RD. Obvious inclusion for RD. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding support is it just me, or are most of those offering such effusive support actually gauged the quality of the article they're supporting for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've looked at it and I don't see how it is so substandard that we can't include him in at least RD. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Referencing has improved a lot (not enough) but a lot since the first objections were raised. The first time I assessed the article above, about 1/2 of the paragraphs in the article, including several whole sections, had no references at all. As of now, it's much closer to being postable. There are a few paragraphs in the social and political activism section likely to be contentious and need cites, and several of the "awards and honors" need cites as well. It's a smaller hurdle than it was earlier today. If you, @Gamaliel:, could get on those fixes quickly, we're real close to getting this to a postable state. Thanks for your concern, and I'm glad you want to help out. --Jayron32 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is in much better shape than when I put up my "pull" !vote above, with maybe a couple floating CNs but far from the undercited case before. It should be okay for posting RD now. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the decision over RD vs blurb based on article quality?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. The quality standards for both should be the same. The blurb vs. RD issue depends primarily on overall notability, with "bonus points" (for lack of a better term) for an unexpected death or other unusual circumstances. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we cash in the secret bonus points? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Needs to be posted ASAP, citing is just fine, not important issues left. (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - might warrant a blurb (beyond my ken), article looks good compared to several almost stubs I've seen posted, a good chunk of references no reason not to have it as an RD in my opinion, I'd suggest get back up there as RD for now, then let people haggle over blurb/not. EdwardLane (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when last few referencing issues are fixed. The SS material really should be better cited as it is likely contentious and includes (for example) opinions of living people completely uncited. The biography should also have some sort of citation - one ref covering it all could be sufficient. That said, the man was an absolute giant in his field and country and rises to the level of full blurb notability IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    So cite it. Not ready, and no support for a full blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    For the record, it wasn't me who marked it ready (although due to wiki oddities, the edit summary history makes it seem that I did). It should be obvious from my comment that I don't feel it is quite ready yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    No need to have a "for the record" edit, it's all wrapped in diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was definitely an iconic writer for decades in both German-language and world literature.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Now (23:00 April 13) listed on German, French, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish and Swedish versions of ITN or RD. Sca (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: With a small bit of free time this evening, I went through and found refs for pretty much everything outstanding in the Waffen-SS section. It took about 15 minutes. Not to point fingers at anyone or single out this particular nomination, but I have to say the WP:SOFIXIT ethos at ITN seems rather lacking. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or RD - He was great, his death is in the news, and the article features additional referencing thanks to Kudzu1. Let's do this and move on. Jusdafax 01:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Judasfax. This has taken long enough already. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • And let me clarify I support an RD, not a blurb. I don't think a blurb is necessary in this case, as the death does not actively impact a great number of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support anything but be quick! - This usually happens here when a person is clearly notable, but some problems must be created despite the article being in good enough shape and the person is defiantly notable. By the time this process is done, it might be 10 days after Grass died (and then who cares?! All that work for nothing!). I support a RD tag and a blurb seems nice since Gabriel Garcia Marquez (I think) got a blurb too. I feel that Grass is good enough for a blurb if not just hurry up to make a decision. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seriously, what's going on? A bunch of students shooting hoops gets a blurb in no time, and we can't even get Günter Grass on RD? What a joke! Fgf10 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb. Article quality looks fine now; consensus slightly more for blurb than for RD. SpencerT♦C 07:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Oxford Men's VIII celebrating victory – Boat Race 2015.jpg
Günter Grass, 2004.jpg
  • Post-posting comment – Suggest pic of Oxford rowers (right) – who appear about 1/4 inch high – be superseded by Grass pic. (left) used on various non-English WPs since ystdy. (Rowers pic has been up for three days.)
PS: It took 2,700 words, and 21 hours (!), to get this item posted. Sca (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Point being? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Clock simple.svg
Sca (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean for a reply. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what it took was article work but some fine individuals. ITN is not a news ticker - it is a place to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not things that are in the news and happen to have any sort of article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; there is nothing wrong with an extensive discussion, which posting word counts and time intervals suggests. Short discussions would be a problem. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, post RD I don't see nearly the impact of this death as there was for a Thatcher or a Mandela. I didn't post here because I knew it was certain to be RD, but I would've opposed a blurb if I had seen it going that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As User:Spencer said, there was a majority for the blurb, so it should stay that way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Muboshgu's suggestion. Logically indefensible, IMO. Ignores global coverage, wide cultural and historical commentary touching on great issues of our times. Sca (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, post RD per Muboshgu. This is hardly Mandela or Thatcher, and there is nothing particularly interesting about the death. Tailor made for RD, unless we now indeed offer the similar courtesy to all Nobel laureates. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Grass is hardly any Nobel laureate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In your opinion, sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful for admin in making decision or WP:AGF-ful. And please don't start getting personal.
This discussion should be Red flag II.svg closed. Why debate this nom – which IMO shouldn't have been controversial in the first place – all over again? Sca (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I simply stated an absolute fact. And we're now just suggesting that it should simply be an RD, Grass was hardly Mandela or Thatcher. And perhaps you aren't aware of our requirement to post quality articles, which this was not. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not a Thatcher. Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, nor a Mandela. Nor was his death in any way remarkable. He is a perfect RD candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
He was a great artist. Sca (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure. But if you asked the whole world who of the three was least significant by some margin, you know what the answer would be. Blurbs are kept for people like Mandela and Thatcher, not a popular and artistic Nobel Laureate who died a very unremarkable death. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Blurbs are kept for when consensus thinks that they are appropriate. We hear and respect your opinion, but it seems to be the minority for this one. This posting was a correct interpretation of consensus. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well no, since posting, two of us have suggested RD is more than adequate for this individual. The posting of the blurb was marginal at best in any case. But thanks for your input! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retain blurb. More notable than a women's basketball tournament? Yup. More notable than the Boat Race? Yup. More notable than someone who was obviously guilty being found guilty? Yup. Pull one of those three if you need to. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support blurb or RD, as is an especially notable author that is near the top of the field. Note that at this time there are 10 that support blurb and/or RD, and 6 that support RD only. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, and we gauge consensus by argument, not by counting votes. This one sets an interesting precedent mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Every support here has a rational argument and is hardly just a vote. Your arguments are not particularly more convincing than any of the other 10. And yes, the number of supports is a measure of consensus, though not the sole measure. Mamyles (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, for instance, one vote for a blurb is "Obvious inclusion for RD." Well played! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, I'll definitely give you that one. Someone should have pinged that editor for clarification. Mamyles (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Another opined with the really well qualified "Support blurb amnd RD obviously needs to be posted". The rationales are not all that convincing here, really.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A third suggested " a blurb seems nice". Brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Now, about the pic, can we switch Grass for rowers as sgtd above? Sca (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's already listed at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Sca and The Rambling Man. We have a featured photo on the German Wikipedia. - (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
David Levy, would a pic switch be your dept.? Sca (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Image updated. Thanks for the ping. —David Levy 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep blurb. Probably a borderline case at best, but I don't think it's so clearly wrong that any good will come out of playing hokey-cokey with it. Formerip (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep blurb whining about this being posted as a blurb is entirely unnecessary. There is sufficient consensus to keep the blurb and he is important enough figure in literature to deserve it as well. Someone should close this. SeraV (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 12[edit]

[Posted] Euroleague Women[edit]

Updated article: 2014–15 EuroLeague Women
Blurb: In basketball, USK Praha beat UMMC Ekaterinburg to win the EuroLeague Women title.
News source(s): [10][11][12]
Nominator and updater: ThaddeusB (give credit)
Other updaters: OSMBST (give credit) and Statli12 (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Article has some issues (most notably no lead), but I figured I'd start the notability discussion before I finished fixing them up

Nominator's comments: Basketball is arguably the world's second most popular sport overall and most successful women's team sport (roughly tied with football). EuroLeague has the highest salaries of any women's league and is perhaps the most widely followed, albeit not in the English speaking world. The men's league is posted (ITNR), but it's final is not for another month, so I thought it was worth testing whether there was consensus to post the women's final. I will have the article in good shape by the end of the day, so article quality shouldn't be a big concern. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support women's basketball in Europe is grossly under-represented. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My knee-jerk reaction was to oppose this because it seems to be a furthering of ITN's recent bizarre fascination with women's sports, but I'm not so sure. I have two questions: is this the highest level of women's basketball, and do people in Europe actually care about it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer your first question, there isn't a definitive answer. To quote Howard the Duck in my discussion about the matter with him last week: "There's no easy answer to that. If you think "more Americans" increases the depth of competition, the WNBA should be it; if you think salaries is a good enough measure, Euroleague Women should be it. Nevertheless, women's basketball has to be the most competitive of all of women's team sports (perhaps surpassing women's football)". As he pointed out, Diana Taurasi (perhaps the world's best player) announced she would sit out the upcoming WNBA season to focus on EuroLeague (for financial reasons) - that is a strong indication of which league is better/more followed. Here are the ESPN and New York Times stories on the subject.
To answer your second question: The number of people who care is certainly less than the number who care about men's basketball, but certainly more than the number who care about almost all other women's professional sports (tennis being the obviously exception). If we are going to post women's sports outside the Grand Slam duel blurbs and Women's World Cup, I would suggest EuroLeague basketball should be the top priority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I still don't know, but I thank you for your nomination and thoughtful response. I'm not sure this meets my personal bar for sports stories, but I guess it's at least it's possible that it would, if I were more familiar with the subject. This probably wouldn't kill us to at least try it, so consider me neutral, as long as it doesn't lead to us posting the WNBA finals. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If this succeeds, I don't plan to nominate WNBA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • strong oppose Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. That is not combated by simply including more minor sports events. This particular event has NO global significance. It is a minor sports event even among minor sports events. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Please demonstrate where it is "a badly written article". Especially after your famous "Sports in general is GROSLLY OVERrepresented" quote! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Overall it reads as if it was written by a 13 year-old boy with a fetish for muscular slavic women.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you need to be more specific than that. Of course, if that's the emotion it evokes it you personally, that's a different matter altogether. Be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you can provide specific criticism on the article, that can be addressed. Otherwise, your comment is completely unhelpful. And for the record, the majority of the players in the league are American born, not Slavic.
As to notability, we'll have to agree to disagree. The world treats sports as VERY important, even if you think they are not. It is not ITN's job to "correct" the world's "bias" that views sports as important, and we already feature less sports coverage than the media at large (not at the moment - it just so happens March-June is when most of the notable sports finals happens - but in general). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Article is now in decent shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Just like those hot Slavic women! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is fine, and talking top women's pro league in EU, not seeing an issue with posting. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: No issues to be seen here. Notable league, final result, etc. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per others. SeraV (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 07:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Two women's basketball events posted in ITN in 5 days, while the first German victory at the most prestigious one-day race in cycling in 119 years is not even nominated. This is really strange to me. And I am not saying the latter should have been posted. I am saying the choices here are weird... Also, three sports blurbs at the same time are also a little too many for me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I think someone is doing this out of spite (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Basketball is generally a winter sport which culminates in the spring (in the northern hemisphere anyway) so several championships are going to happen in close order. As for the bike race, you could have nominated it. And who says ITN should be restricted to murder and mayhem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Centenary of Armenian Genocide[edit]

No consensus to post; more suited for OTD. SpencerT♦C 07:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Articles: 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and Armenian Genocide
Blurb: Commemorations are held in Armenia to mark the genocide 100 years ago.
Nominator: Nergaal (give credit)

Since we posted the centenary of the start of the WW1, should we also post "the first genocide of the 20th century"? "he starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915". Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The WWI centenary discussion here seem predicated on the fact that there were world-leader-led ceremonies to acknowledge its occurrence. I very much doubt (but could be proven wrong) that we'd have the same level of world recognition for this event. I would note that the 100th anniversary of an event would be easy TFA material, if this was a FA. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 24, if you expand the "Staging Area" portion, the genocide article is listed as eligible to appear in the On This Day section of the Main Page. I think that on the anniversary itself, an appearance in On This Day is the most appropriate answer. Looking at the revision history, It appears that the coordinator Howcheng prepares the list approximately one week in advance. As Masem says, if the ceremonies meet the ITN criteria, then they could appear in ITN the following day (or however long the ITN veto process takes). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I usually get them about 2 days in advance, but OTD would be the appropriate location for this, unless as Masem says it gets a lot of attention worldwide. howcheng {chat} 11:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This strikes me as more appropriate for "On This Day", and potential advocacy given how controversial even recognizing it as a "genocide" remains. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is more appropriate for OTD. The centennial itself has not been getting significant news attention from sources I've read, however there has been attention to the genocide due to comments by the pope, unrelated to this anniversary. Mamyles (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that I've added the standard nomination template and formulated a draft blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] 2015 Masters Tournament[edit]

Article to update: 2015 Masters Tournament
Blurb: In golf, American Jordan Spieth wins the Masters Tournament.
News source(s): CNN Los Angeles Times
Nominator: Andise1 (give credit)
Updater: Yes (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Note: Article needs to be updated.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R event. Should we mention any records broken in the blurb? Andise1 (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support a single entry covering both the winner and the records he tied or set in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements No need to mention the record, since it was only tying, and it wasn't that long ago the record was previously broken). I recognize the article is comparable to 2014's version, but there's no discussion of media coverage, reception, etc. which would be norm for a major pro event like this in the US, and I really feel this should be part of the article before posting, otherwise it's just a stats page. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem - the article could use some expansion before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and I believe that the article is already of sufficient quality. Mamyles (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a huge unsourced section with some horrible formatting, a few tables and not much in the way of prose. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per super crap article on supposedly one of the most significant golfing events of the year. Awful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based solely on article quality. There's very little prose in the article, it's basically a series of tables and lists with a sentence or two of introduction here or there. I would expect a full prose synopsis of the tournament before posting. The "Field" section is also rather unwieldy and has too much WP:TRIVIA. A simple list or table would suffice. If those two problems could be fixed (with appropriate referencing, of course) this would be postable. --Jayron32 20:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tempted to support per RamblingMans oppose vote, but Oppose per common sense. Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that sports are over-represented recently. However, that is because of the timing of many championships being close together, and that there are relatively few non-sport events occurring/nominated recently. Notable, once-a-year sports championships should not be excluded solely because they occur close to other notable sports events. (which is in part why ITNR exists) Mamyles (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sports is overrepresented year round every year. And yes most annual sports events have no business whatsoever in ITN. No annual event is that important. Sports is even less so compared to e.g. Nobel prizes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. The article is minimally updated and this is INTR. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 07:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Question Consensus above was that article quality was an issue that needed to be fixed before posting. Were the problems itemized as needing to be fixed actually fixed? Because only 2/8 people who commented said that the article was of sufficient quality. While we all know that consensus building is not strictly vote counting, it is hard to argue that number of specific objections based on actionable and needed fixes somehow is ignorable. If the problems have been fixed, fine. But have they? --Jayron32 14:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Turkey recalls Vatican ambassador[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 07:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Article: Armenian Genocide recognition
Blurb: Turkey recalls its ambassador to the Holy See after Pope Francis recognizes the Armenian Genocide.
News source(s): Christian Science Monitor BBC USA Today New York Times
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Seems like a significant international incident. According to the Christian Science Monitor, this makes Pope Francis "the first head of the Roman Catholic Church to publicly pronounce the word "genocide" to describe them [i.e. the killings of Armenians]." Everymorning talk 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is part of a larger effort by the Pope to prevent genocides which are occurring right now. Abductive (reasoning) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. If there was a breaking of diplomatic relations, that might be enough, but recalling ambassadors is fairly standard in situations like this. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (once again) per Abductive, many countries recognise this as genocide, the Pope is just (sort of) saying what they (and most of us) all think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppos interesting tacit admission it occurred, but they just don't want to talk about it. But overall of no real historical relevance. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per 331dot. If they break off ties altogether then we can reassess. Modest Genius talk 21:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] 54-hole record at the 2015 Masters Tournament[edit]

If required, merge with the other real ITNR nom here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Articles: 2015 Masters Tournament and Jordan Spieth
Blurb: Jordan Spieth breaks the 54 hole record at the Masters shooting a 200 total (16 under par) for 54 holes.
News source(s): Master
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Nominator's comments: He broke the Masters record of 201 set by Raymond Floyd in 1976 and matched by Tiger Woods in 1997. May be waited for the final reault. Both Floyd and Woods won the championship the next day. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this, it's not the ITNR at all. Definitely wait to see if it can be merged into a blurb regarding the winner. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until he actually wins per TRM. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a trainspotting record, because it doesn't matter until the final round is played, which could wipe that away with one bad round. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for the final results. If he wins, include that fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose prefer waiting per Rambling Man, I'd support posting the winner. Shiny Son (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't active on ITN then, but didn't we post a blurb when Miroslav Klose broke the World Cup scoring record, then merge it when Germany won the hole shabang? I'm sure there was a bit of fuss over that and some proud Americans saying the ITN system has a pro-soccer bias. Overall, any sports record is just that - a record - and interests a niche audience unless it can be tacked onto the end of a wider "X won the Y Cup" '''tAD''' (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the breaking of a record in the world's premier tournament for the world's most popular sport might just be a little bit more important than a footnote statistic like this one. If he breaks the full tournament record tonight that might be different (but I'd still merge it in with the result). Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. If he scores a record over 72 holes (which is the actual length of the tournament) then we can combine this with the blurb about the winner. But if it's only a record at the 54-hole mark, then I don't see why we should post the same tournament twice in as many days. Modest Genius talk 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

April 11[edit]

[Closed] Operation Raahat[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 07:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated article: Operation Raahat
Blurb: India evacuates more than 5600 people including 960 foreign nationals of 41 countries following Yemeni Crisis.
News source(s): [1][2]
Nominator: Nizil Shah (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Large number of evacuees including 960 foreign nationals of 41 countries. Nizil (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the article should be merged with the Pakistan one, given that China and the Phillipines have also extracted foreign nationals. It's also noteworthy that Americans are suing the State department (latimes RT, that should be in a combined article. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: We have a link to this in Ongoing. Does this represent a significant enough development in the Yemeni Civil War to need special treatment? --Jayron32 00:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose People being evacuated from a war zone is routine. Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive and the fact this is best served by a single bullet point from the Ongoing article we already have posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a development in the wider ongoing crisis, and not as serious as the capture of a city, a foreign intervention or the ousting of a government. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Closed] Muhammad Kamaruzzaman[edit]

at best three days stale μηδείς (talk)

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.

Article: Muhammad Kamaruzzaman
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you explain how this person meets the RD criteria(either below or in the "nom cmt" line of the template) as it will help others better understand the reason. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think they do. In any case, an article which gives the subject's date of birth as 1947 and 1952 inside the first two paragraphs clearly needs updating. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fairly certain this was listed when several people were convicted. In any case, don't see his being executed as much of an achievement, this would have to be a blurb, which it does not merit. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing how the individual meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

[Posted] 161st Boat Race[edit]

Posted, and correctly so. I have offered alternatives to those who have complained, please follow them up if you really care. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Article: The Boat Races 2015
Blurb: In rowing, Oxford beat Cambridge in the 161st Boat Race.
Alternative blurb: In rowing, Oxford beat Cambridge in the 161st Boat Race and in the first Women's Boat Race held on the Tideway
Nominator: (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it. (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. The event is listed on WP:ITNR for its importance. We should take this opportunity to thank The Rambling Man for his extensive work on the Boat Races for the past 160 years. (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think TRM has worked on Wikipedia's Boat Race articles for 160 years. ;) 331dot (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note The blurb is taken from last year's blurb. The women's Boat Race does not have the same coverage as the main event and does not seem to be part of the previous ITNR discussion. (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I would oppose that and say that we should mention that this is the first time the women's race has happened at the same venue as the men's race. Alt 1: In rowing, the male and female crews raced at the same location for the first time in history as in both races the Oxford beat Cambridge [change if necessary] in the 161st Boat Races. (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
      • If the women's NCAA basketball final did not (bizarrely, arbitrarily, and rather cruelly) make the cut, why should this be any different? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I am not sure it should be treated differently. The Boat Race (which means by default the men's one), was considered to be prestigious enough for ITNR, yet the women's one would surely fail to make the cut on its own merits. It has not even been discussed there. By the way, writing "the 161st Boat Races" does not make sense because "The Boat Race" refers by default to the men's and the women have only been racing since 1927. Have a look at today's featured article: the focus is all on the men's. Similarly, compare the depth of coverage of Women's Boat Race (2,993 bytes) to The Boat Race (59,006 bytes). (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as the article is of a reasonable quality (in my opinion) and suitably updated, the only necessary criterion for this ITNR. Just a shame about the results... I've added an alt blurb for the women's race result too. And obviously I will expand and enhance the article over the next three or four hours as reactions and more sourced material becomes available.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the women's race ITNR or was just the Boat Race considered? I shall have a proper look. Either way, it is nice to see someone supporting the better of the two universities! ;) (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per ITN/R, even though I couldn't find these sorts of things much more dull. Even NASCAR is more interesting than these rowing contests. Alas, people watch them, for some reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Posted. I posted the first blurb. I find the altblurb's grammar to be impenetrable and hard to parse. If someone can offer a better version, and there is clear consensus to post the Women's results as well, no prejudice against updating. --Jayron32 17:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    I ended up putting a bit in about the Women's race anyways. It is given equal coverage in the highlighted article, and didn't take up too much space to do so. --Jayron32 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you, Jayron, but the blurb is quite wrong now. The "161st Boat Race" is only the men's race. There are not separate men's and women's competitions as part of it. The women's Boat Race is about 90 years old. (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, the article is called The Boat Races 2015 for a reason, and why I added the alt blurb to clarify. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    In fact I've restored the original (and accurate) blurb until we can agree on wording to include the women's race, if that's deemed appropriate on this historic occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    No objection to that. There seemed to be a rough consensus to include the Woman's race, and it is given equal coverage in the target article. The issue to me just was the awkward wording. If anyone comes up with a natural way to note the results of both races, and there is consensus to include it, no prejudice one way or the other to posting it or not, for whatever anyone wants to do. I have no opinion on the matter in either direction. --Jayron32 18:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 1 hr + change with only 4 !votes is far too fast to post something like this, even though I don't see any problems at the time of posting. I don't see any major objections that could come but we should still not be rushing even ITNR posts. Note , I'm not asking for it to be pulled, just a a timing aspect to keep in mind. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Are there any aspects of the article which you believe to be insufficient? Please do highlight them so I can address them to your satisfaction. Otherwise, it should be pleasing (to some) to see a good article, well referenced, and complete (as far as I can see) being posted in good time at ITN as it is an ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Masem:: Perhaps you could get WP:BURO removed from Wikipedia permanently? Otherwise, I fail to understand the "It's fine to post this, there's nothing wrong with the article, but I still object because it was too fast" objection. If there's no reason to object three hours from now, there would be no reason to object now. --Jayron32 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Still, we need to think about the blurb. We have something that does not make sense and also includes an event that is not part of ITNR. (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    See parallel discussion above... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see any issues, and 4 other people didn't see any issues, but we should still wait some time to make sure no one has any serious problems. We are in no rush to push ITN items, and should allow a reasonable amount of time (a few hours at least, in this case , given the timing in the relative English-speaking parts of the world) to gain better consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's very rare that we only have consensus on article quality, as well you know. ITNRs can be and are often posted as soon as the posting admin has assessed that an update of sufficient quality has been made. That's been the case here. I think you're creating an issue where one doesn't exist on this occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    No, including the posting notice, there is only one statement made about article quality at the time of posting, which is far from a consensus on quality. I am not saying that the article quality was bad, but that should have not been posted if no one addressed (either way) the quality of the article, which can stall an ITNR. Add in the fact that while an ITNR (and by no means challenging that) that this is a very regional-level topic that has far more interest in the UK/Europe than the US, and you create situations where one takes advantage of time zones to push things things through. Not that this is the case here, but I still stress that we have no need to rush any posts to ITN, and should wait at least a few hours to have more voices check on article quality even for ITNR. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    We have admins here to judge quality for ITNR items. If you don't trust them, perhaps we should let anyone post items to ITN. I addressed the quality of the article, the posting admin has done (otherwise he wouldn't have posted it), you say there are no problems with the article that you can see, I think it's sufficient. Once again, you could save this fight for when it's justifiably required. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Given several incidents of where admins have posted articles that have subsequently been pulled because of quality issues (even when these were pointed out in the ITNC), yes, we should have better consensus from !votes on these points. If there was a longer string of comments (I don't know what the minimum number would be, but 4 is far too small) that all pointed out no issues in article quality and the okay to post, that would be fine. Waiting more time for more comments to come for any topic helps to reduce the chance of having to retract ITN after posting. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    As I said, you could pick your battles more wisely! The article is borderline GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    It has nothing to do with the actual article, but this ITN process. It's been an issue that articles should be of quality to be posted, even if they meet ITNR, and having a few more !votes here to affirm that the article was in good shape for posting - which would have come within a few hrs more. This may have been fine, but it is this type of "sloppiness" of process that leads to articles being posted to TIN and subsequently pulled due to the article being in bad shape. A few more hours of discussion would have not hurt anything in this case. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Where is the sloppiness here? We could wait a few more hours for ... nothing to happen. The article is GA quality. If you think we should wait for ... nothing to happen for three hours just to satisfy some odd urge, that's your perspective. But as I said a couple of times, you could have picked a better victim for your perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    There is nothing wrong with posting (the men's race) as soon as the article was ready. The whole point of ITNR is avoid unnecessary discussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    ITNR is not a guarantee of posting, only that their is consensus that the event is the type that gets posted, but the specific instance of the event and the quality of the article all still must be evaluated. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Wrong, it's just an assessment of quality. And we place that in the hands of capable admins. If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest you take concerns to WT:ITN, as it's somewhat bloating this perfectly suitably posted ITNR which now has at least four individuals in agreement that it's okay for the main page. Of course, feel free to bring this fight back into play when you see an ITNR posted which isn't of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    As TRM says, the assessment of quality has historically fallen primarily to the posting admin. the whole argumjent that somethign was done wrong here smack of pure bureaucracy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at the ITNR discussion here, it is clear it is only for the men's event. The basis for including the event is through its popularity, both in the UK and abroad, justified partly with huge viewing figures on television. Before this year, the women's race has never even been shown on television: it was a much shorter race that took part elsewhere. The difference between the articles The Boat Race and Women's Boat Race is testament to this. If the women's race one day becomes as popular and important as the men's, then it should also be included, but it does not seem as if we are anywhere near that stage yet. It is not down to us to be saying what should be popular and what should not be. (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Being held on the same day and same course as the men's race is a milestone in wimmen's sport. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Image note and question: Tyus Jones was the image for 4 days, so I switched out his photo for one of the Oxford team. However, now that I've done that, I see the the top two images on the Main page are both Oxford teams (of 2 different years) in their boats. This problem will go away when the TFA switches in 3 hours, but if anyone thinks this looks horrible, I can revert until that happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's an absolute disgrace to feature Oxford twice, but then I would, wouldn't I? Stet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree the historic first for the women's race is worth posting. I too am struggling to think of a non-awkward wording, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps: "In both the 161st Boat Race and first Women's Boat Race held on the Tideway, Oxford defeat Cambridge." Thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Like. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Since no other opinions have been offered on the wording & there appears to be consensus to mention both races, I am being bold and making the change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong pull for the same reasons as the NCAA basketball below. This is an amateur university-level sporting contest, open to students at two universities only. How it got list on ITNR mystifies me. The mere fact that it gets TV coverage does not justify posting it - we certainly do not post every sporting event with a large TV audience (or would be constantly posting IPL games and NASCAR races). Modest Genius talk 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Noted, thanks. It is worth noting that it's not the mere fact of its television audience that it is of global interest, but there is little point in explaining it to you for the umpteenth time, deaf ears and all that jazz. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    In addition, I fail to see how completely ignoring ITN/R is of any value here. There are rules, and they should be stuck to despite the odd maverick's opinion unless there is a revote. (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Again, I must call you out for your ridiculous "strong pull" request. As I explained to you once already this week, a "pull" means you think there is a defect with the article or consensus. It is not merely an expression of your opinion late, but rather an accusation of a fundamental error. Your opinion is not so important that we need to hear it after a matter has been decided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Where did you get that idea from? I don't think it should have been posted, but it already has been. Ergo my !vote is 'pull' rather than oppose. I'm not aware of any rule or guideline which says it has anything to do with a 'fundamental error'. Modest Genius talk 18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Once again, thanks to all. What was a trivially simple decision to post an ITNR article of significant quality to the main page has become something of a bitchfest of some magnitude, and unnecessarily so. For anyone objecting as to the quality of the article, please note what's wrong. For anyone objecting to the notability, please address the item's inclusion at ITN/R at WT:ITNR. For those objecting to allowing an admin judge whether an ITN/R should or should not be posted, please address this issue at WT:ITN. You all know this. Stop drama-whoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Grand National 2015[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Leighton Aspell and article to update: Many Clouds

Blurb: Leighton Aspell wins the 2015 Grand National on Many Clouds.
Alternative blurb: In horse racing, Many Clouds wins the Grand National.
News source(s): [13], BBC
Nominator: (give credit)
Updater: Tigerboy1966 (give credit)
Other updaters: (give credit) and TBM10 (give credit)

Article updated

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it. (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support when updated The event is ITN/R. I've suggested another blurb above and found an image of the horse & jockey. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • JuneGloom07, I feel that the jockey should be mentioned, as perhaps should the fact that this is the first time a jockey has won twice in a row for 40 years. Thanks, (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Article now updated. (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The Grand National article is NOT adequately updated. At minimum, there should be a text description of the race, not just a table of the finishing order. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, I've added a basic review of the race. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The "media" section is unreferencedm which needs fixed. My apologies for not pointing this out sooner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • On ITNR so should go up once the article is good to go - it currently looks pretty borderline. It has been updated and there's a prose summary, although it only has 2 references. The broadcast section still has an orange tag, however it could simply be removed (and copied to the talk page) until references are found - the article is sufficiently complete even without it. Modest Genius talk 21:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - has been "a British sporting institution since 1839" (although this is probably "both laughable and irrelevant to whether it should be on ITNR or not"). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've referenced the bits I can at the Grand National page from the programme itself. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone care to fill in the SP column? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Does last year's source work for you? Not for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Martinevans123: not for me. I was surprised, I thought some joke was afoot that I was being left out on. Thanks, (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The table of runners is incomplete. It's hardly ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Go on, do tell. I thought 40 was the limit? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It has no information in the colours nor the SP columns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have a problem with sources for those. I have added a note at the Talk Page. I'm not sure that the two blank columns affect the postability of this item (while it's still fresh?) - is there a rule written down about this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess removing those non-essential columns is better than having them completely blank for the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

  1. ^ Kumar, Hari (2015-04-10). "India Concludes Evacuation of Its Citizens From Yemen". Retrieved 2015-04-11. 
  2. ^ "India evacuates 4,640 nationals, 960 others from Yemen". 2015-04-10. Retrieved 2015-04-11.