*'''Marked Ready''' image is cleared, articles are updated, well supported and listed for comment for almost 24 hrs. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Marked Ready''' image is cleared, articles are updated, well supported and listed for comment for almost 24 hrs. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm still not very happy with the blurb. We've seen gaps in protoplanetary disks before [http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-hubble-uncovers-evidence-of-farthest-planet-forming-from-its-star/#.VF-kePnF98E][http://scitechdaily.com/direct-infrared-image-of-the-protoplanetary-disk-around-a-young-star/][http://subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2013/08/04/index.html#3]. The current image is spectacular, but simply saying that we saw gaps in a protoplanetary disk isn't that novel. Its a bit like saying, we built a new submarine and captured videos of whales mating. Though rarely seen, it isn't unexpected nor completely novel. Aside from adding detail, do these observations actually reveal anything qualitatively new? [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm still not very happy with the blurb. We've seen gaps in protoplanetary disks before [http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-hubble-uncovers-evidence-of-farthest-planet-forming-from-its-star/#.VF-kePnF98E][http://scitechdaily.com/direct-infrared-image-of-the-protoplanetary-disk-around-a-young-star/][http://subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2013/08/04/index.html#3]. The current image is spectacular, but simply saying that we saw gaps in a protoplanetary disk isn't that novel. Its a bit like saying, we built a new submarine and captured videos of whales mating. Though rarely seen, it isn't unexpected nor completely novel. Aside from adding detail, do these observations actually reveal anything qualitatively new? [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, this is the first image where we can actually say, there's a planet here, here, here, here and here.... As for the blurb, what do you suggest? I am fine with it as is, but a shorter '''''The [[Atacama Large Millimeter Array|ALMA radio telescope array]] reveals [[protoplanetary disk|planets forming]] aound the star '''[[HL Tauri]]''''' should do fine, since people who are interested will read the specific details in the relevant article. 19:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Nominator's comments: This seems to be a widely covered story in outlets around the world. I think this helps meet the first purpose of ITN, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". I'm not going to push for this hard but I felt it was worth discussing given the lack of nominations in the last day or so. --331dot (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same reason from when Miller was arrested - neither person seemed to be arrested out of NK spite but because they were purposely in NK to be disruptive. If they were POWs or something of a longer-standing issue, perhaps, but these two don't need the additional media attention for being wreckless to start. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parents of Mexico's missing students say authorities found 6 bags containing unidentified corpses; investigations are underway to determine if they are of the missing students. Three people confess their involvement in the massacre. (Fox News)
New Zealand authorities charge Australian AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd with attempting to procure two murders, making death threats, and possessing drugs. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: We've been seeing artistic illustrations like this for years, but to have a real image of the very center of the protoplanetary disk with 8 neat little gaps so reminiscent of those for the moons in Saturn's rings -- it's absolutely remarkable. This is the very first image produced by the upgraded high-resolution ALMA with telescopes 35 km apart, so we can expect a lot more wonders to come, but this is a first. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC) --Wnt (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Widely covered in many countries and languages. A rare and unusually important scientific accomplishment. We have had theories for a long time about how planets form and now there's a picture of it happening. JehochmanTalk23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Jehochman. Remarkable. Have been seeing illustrations like this most of my life. Photo inclusion with a posting is a must. Jusdafax00:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the main point here is that ALMA has new capabilities or that planets are forming in HL Tauri, then I don't support inclusion in ITN. I don't think evidence of planet formation or incremental advancements in telescope technology are generally suitable for ITN. However, if this is the first ever or best ever picture of its kind, then inclusion could make sense. Right now, the blurb doesn't effectively make the case that this image is special / unique, so I'd like to see a different blurb suggestion. Also, the image description page (which is overly long) contains both a PD license tag and a CC-BY description (in the text). My initial reading suggests that the PD license is wrong in this case as NRAO is not a US Gov agency, but rather an independent research center funded by federal grants. That said, the CC-BY is probably correct. In any event, the licensing needs to be clarified. Dragons flight (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate some feedback on this. Reading National Radio Astronomy Observatory article and the site itself, I certainly had the impression that the entity is more or less a federal agency. The article Federally funded research and development centers lists it with sites like LNBL and JPL that I would also have thought were producing federal government work. I'm rather afraid to give up on it being PD without further data because if all those things aren't PD, what exactly is? I mean, even the White House probably has a private contractor involved in running the website - I feel like you could pooh-pooh any federal work this way. Wnt (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, most of the national labs, including LBNL, are operated as independent contractors and their work is subject to copyright. Some of the national labs have a blanket copyright release policy but that is separate from PD-USGov. JPL, which is operated by Caltech under contract by NASA, has a similar situation and is described at Wikipedia:Using JPL images. In general, for PD-USGov to apply, the creator of the image in question must qualify as an employee of the US Government. The government clearly delineates between their employees and contractors, though it isn't always obvious unless you look into it. Government agencies like DOE, CDC, NSF, Interior, etc. qualify, but federally funded research and development centers generally don't. Dragons flight (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's worth pointing out that someone went over the file and redid it with an ESO permission which seems standard CC. Wnt (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle if technical needs are met, a hugely dramatic discovery/accomplishment, a leap and a bound, not just an incremental improvement. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm still not very happy with the blurb. We've seen gaps in protoplanetary disks before [2][3][4]. The current image is spectacular, but simply saying that we saw gaps in a protoplanetary disk isn't that novel. Its a bit like saying, we built a new submarine and captured videos of whales mating. Though rarely seen, it isn't unexpected nor completely novel. Aside from adding detail, do these observations actually reveal anything qualitatively new? Dragons flight (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the first image where we can actually say, there's a planet here, here, here, here and here.... As for the blurb, what do you suggest? I am fine with it as is, but a shorter The ALMA radio telescope array reveals planets forming aound the star HL Tauri should do fine, since people who are interested will read the specific details in the relevant article. 19:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD pending article improvements - The BBC article as source has more details that explain why this should be an RD post (93M lifetime album sales, worldwide fame), but the WP article could really use some of these before posting. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: I realize this is early but I didn't see why this couldn't be started now. Blurb might need sorting out given the many possible Senate results. I'm also fairly sure Governor's races don't get mentioned(even just in total). --> --331dot (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact this is ITNR(and newsworthy around the world), the Republicans are expected to win the Senate; if the Democrats keep it, it will be just as newsworthy as if they didnt. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "wins a majority of the seats in the the U.S. Senate" or some variation of that, as "wins the senate" sounds a bit slangy in an encyclopedic context. Regardless, certainly support for the posting.--Yaksar(let's chat)18:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for results, pending on the change of party control of either House or Senate.Support Now well confirmed that Senate has changed even if a few runs are close calls. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well Chris Christie was not expected to be elected NJ Governor in his first election, nor was NYC mayor Rudolf Giuliani, and the 2008 presediential election was expected to be held between Giuliani and Hillary. I suggest maybe an ongoing link could be posted as results come in, and then a real blurb if one of the Houses switches hands? That would deal with both those seeking specific information (ongoing) and later with any historical changeover. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea in relation to waiting for the results- though I would respectfully submit there is nothing in ITNR which says the results only get posted if there is a change in control. The election is newsworthy regardless. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really disagreeing with you personally here, 331dot. But what's the point of ITN/R if there's no change? We might as well have"the sun rose at dawn" given its importance under that rationale. Also, we don't post midterms for other countries, so this seems a little Americentric. Being American, I realize that that is how it should be. But objective judgment and American exceptionalism are two different things. So I still say we go with ongoing ASAP and a change of leadership iff it happens. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with ongoing. Once the senate results are in, then the story is "done" for all purposes, and I believe that a relatively recent country-leader election we waited until the official vote re-counted was done to make that news. If for some reason the House change happens and is known tonight, while the Senate happens a few days later due to recounting, either we can split them or do one common nomination, but ongoing is not necessary here particularly for non-country leader elections. (On the other hand, back when it was Bush v Gore, that's was the ideal storm for an ongoing on pending election results). --MASEM (t) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, your point is still wait? The Gore fiasco was a supreme court case upholding the pre-existing law, which a nine Democratic judge Florida supreme court attempted to violate in disregard of the US constitution. It has nothing do with a possible current change of leadership in the Senate. Per the nom we may not know the Senate results for a while, while there may be readers interested in our objective take in the meantime. That's the reason for ongoing > full blurb, and it in no way violates the protocol, regardless of whose presidential candidate lost 14 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, the only reason that this particular election should be posted is if there is a change in either House; otherwise it is the status quo (again, a reason IAR exception to the ITN/R nature). It likely won't be the case based on projections (we are expected to have one change, and the other too close to call), so we'll still likely have an element. But I can tell you that most of the world is not on the edge of their seat needed to know if the Senate has changed over given we're talking about the lame duck years of an incumbent president (historically where nothing gets done). As such, an ongoing about the pending results after review is not necessary; just post one story when it's all known like we would for anything else. On the other hand, if we had ITN and ongoing during Bush v Gore - for the role of the effective "leader of the free world", the results would be of strong interest worldwide and the process of the counting and the court stuff would have all delayed that, so having that as ongoing would have made sense. (the tl;dr answer is still "wait and see" for this story, but still opposed to ongoing) --MASEM (t) 19:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The House is already controlled by Republicans, and that is unlikely to change given current polling. Only the Senate is subject to significant uncertainty right now. Dragons flight (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(to Masem) I'm not going to say that an IAR objection is invalid in this case, but I think if in general that is going to be the policy, that should be written down, as the current ITNR listing suggests something very different(that the results will be posted regardless of a change in control of a legislative body).331dot (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? If I remember correctly, that guideline means nothing. Or, at least, that's what people said when they refused to post the blurb on elections in St Thomas and Prince. If no one cares about the election in St Thomas and Prince, surely no one cares about the election in America? RGloucester — ☎19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a high probability that one or more Senate races will require either a recount (if the result is close) or a runoff election (in states that require the winner to get at least 50% of the vote, while having more than two candidates). Because this election appears to be fairly close on the issue of Senate control, there is a significant chance (roughly 50% by one estimate [5]) that we won't have a definitive answer on Senate control until recounts / runoffs have been resolved several weeks from now. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Louisiana and Georgia will have runoffs at a later date (I think one in December, the other in January) if no candidate reaches 50%. Alaska takes a long time to count votes as well; they may not know until next week who won. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once it's known who controls what, not before. I objected to an ITN/R election recently because of the total lack of coverage in sources. This election is heavily covered, even though it doesn't involve a head of state. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. POTUS may not be the only office that matters, but we generally only post the result of an election that determines who occupies the highest seat in the government. Not seeing any special reason for American mid-term elections to be posted. My opposition stands even if one of the houses changes hands. Resolute21:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not ITN/R under any criteria I can see so I've removed that marker. The only criteria I can see is that people are treating it as a general election, but according to our own definition "In presidential systems, the term refers to a regularly scheduled election where both the president, and either "a class" of or all members of the national legislature are elected at the same time." With that gone I see no objective justification for posting this: given the ongoing controversy over elections and the consequent coverage of elections that probably don't have widespread consensus I see no reason to make the problem of undue emphasis even worse by posting second tier elections. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It is the third sentence of general election. It goes on to state "In U.S. politics, general elections occur every four years and include the presidential election." That article explains what the term usually means and since there is no expansion of the term on ITN/R that is the interpretation we should adopt. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but perhaps someone should read up on American politics. Presidential elections are held every 4 years but elections for the national legislature are held every 2 years (because members of the House of Representatives hold 2 year terms and members of the Senate hold 6 year terms) as is clearly stated in Elections in the United States (which is linked from general election and really just points out a conflict in truth of information between the two pages. ITN/R includes the results of general elections in all states in List of sovereign states (which includes the US). Now please, tell us how this is not ITN/R. Palmtree5551 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the election of the national legislature of the United States should not be posted and is not newsworthy enough to be posted? Your interpretation sounds like wikilawyering to me. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that case even if he was re-elected, but of course either case isn't going to happen. Obama being re-elected for a third term would after all represent a constitutional crisis. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. It gets posted whenever there is a general election. That is the same as every other country. I've just read your comments against treating particular countries specially on WT:ITNR. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I asked for special treatment. I will rephrase and ask again: since the United States Congress does not have a parliamentary system, its elections are excluded from ITNR unless the head of state is on the ballot? 331dot (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have opposed general changes to the ITNR listing(including specifying that not all elections are posted because that is already general policy); I don't recall specifically opposing a change to permit US Congress elections being posted, because my apparently mistaken common sense told me that most national legislative elections would qualify. I still disagree with the interpretation you have provided, but this exchange has led me to the conclusion that we do indeed need a major overhaul in how elections are treated, when the national legislative elections of a large country apparently don't qualify. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Somchai, this is a joke?X-Centrism is never a valid oppose reasons per the guidelines. And give there is no nation more important that the US, what, exactly, be thy point? μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be careful about that, BBC and many other big sites do tailor their content based on IP geolocation. I look at it and the top story is an employment tribunal ruling. Interesting enough but not ITN worthy. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it does autodirect me to .com rather than .co.uk. Of course, it looks like their second story is still on the topic, so the point is pretty much the same.--Yaksar(let's chat)22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's true that a change in either of the houses would be an ITN/R-worthy event. However, I think a healthy dose of WP:IAR is needed here. This is not notable internationally.--WaltCip (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a minor election in a minor part of the world. I don't see why this should be posted if the St Thomas and Prince election was not. We must have uniformity. If we are not going to include events of parochial interest at ITN, then I see no reason why American parochial events are more important than St Thomas and Prince parochial events. RGloucester — ☎00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the grand scheme of things, every part of the world is minor. If we did not post the St Thomas and Prince election, we certainly cannot post this one. Perhaps an executive election might be worth posting, given that America is bound to a presidential system. However, such a minor election as this cannot be granted WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎00:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is St. Thomas and Prince??? I've never heard of such a place! I can't tell if you're serious; of all the good reasons to oppose, this is a very strange one indeed. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless I am very much mistaken, we have posted both legislative as well as presidential elections in countries with presidential systems, and they have been treated as ITN/R. I'm not impressed by the (uncited) statement in the general election article that a general election in a presidential system only occurs when the presidency as well as some or all of the legislature is being elected. Quite a few presidential systems always have presidential and legislature elections separately, so if the article is correct they never have general elections. So I regard this as ITN/R. In any case, like it or not, the US elections - even midterms - are of international interest and significance because of the US's power. Neljack (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For whatever small value it may have, I checked and noted that the last two midterms (2006 and 2010) were posted to ITN. In each of those cases, control over at least one half of Congress changed hands. Dragons flight (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Dragon's Flight I've just been doing some looking back and yes it was posted on the last two occasions. However 2006 was not directly comparable since it predates the modern ITN/C discussion process. In 2010 it was posted but there was no question of whether this was ITNR, the discussion explicitly acknowledged that it was not, so the argument that denying ITNR status is somehow Wikilawyering doesn't really hold up - that position was universally understood and accepted last time around. And yes, the elections wording on ITNR was identical to now bar for the absence of the EU elections.
What has changed since then is a massively greater dissatisfaction with the current ITN treatment of elections. If we are already posting three or four times the number of elections that there is genuine collective consensus for then the threshold for discretionary postings of anything over and above that should be fairly high.
This doesn't meet that - like it or not this is a routine, scheduled election rather than anything remotely out of the ordinary. It has not been triggered by any form of crisis, nor is it the first of its kind following some form of constitutional change. In that context what country it is is an utter irrelevance, it can never meet that bar. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support whatever the result is. Most of the legislature is elected in a country with the World's third largest population and the strongest in economy, military, political influence, etc. It's less news than when the president is elected but still big news globally, much bigger than the main election in most countries. It's the main foreign story on all five Danish media I checked from a Danish IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have posted the results of many country's legislative elections in the past, it doesn't somehow become less newsworthy merely because the U.S. is involved in this election. --Jayron3204:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are usually general elections. Can you cite any other similar election that has been posted where the make up of the government is not at stake and that is not "unusual" in any way that has been posted. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that this is not one of the more notable secondary elections: clearly it is. However, it is not the top tier election and not ITNR. The argument is that this is not notable enough to justify posting on top of the coverage the US already receives in what is itself a category that receives far more attention than is justified by prevailing sentiment. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify for our trans-pond friends,the Senate (along with the House) is the strongest branch of the US government. It's mentioned in Article I of the Constitution, and the only branch that can remove siting federal officials either by expulsion or impeachment. Further, no law can be passed without both now soon to be Republican controlled Houses, nor any Supreme Court Justice or Cabinet member seated. This is the equivalent of a change of ruling party in the British Parliament, although we are still stuck with a hugely impopular sovereign, unlike EiiR. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obama still has an approval rating in the low to mid 40s, which is bad, but probably doesn't qualify as "hugely" unpopular. For example, it beats several European prime ministers, including David Cameron. Dragons flight (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, the previous president had a 25% right before Obama's election and sported sub-33% approval for most of his last half term, including when the economy was "good". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for immediate posting of alt-blurb. The change of party control has important implications both within the U.S. and abroad and is highly newsworthy, to the point that it would represent a glaringly obvious omission if we were not to post this. Insert "control of" after "wins" in the blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The President was never going to change in this, nor was anyone on the entire executive. I don't see this as a hugely big deal in any event: the way power is subdivided in America lessens the importance of any one branch in particular - you have the three arms of government (courts, executive, legislature) that are by and large independent of each other, and at two distinct levels - federal and state - where at lot of the real power still resides at the lower level. A change in composition of one of those branches and at one level does not amount to earth-shattering significance, especially when the President can veto anything to come out of the Capitol. General election, fine, that results in larger changes. This? Not so much.
Put another way, why is this single election more important than the equivalent in any other country? If it isn't how is posting this remotely justifiable? How does this not show systemic bias if it is posted for no reason other than it is America? 3142 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Russian legislative election, 2011 and Talk:Russian presidential election, 2012 say both were ITN. The Russian President appoints the government. There are many countries where we post both legislature and head of state, for example France 2012 only a month apart. Countries have different election systems and distribution of powers. Opponents are selecting criteria which apply to few countries and have little to do with the significance of the election. We post many ceremonial heads of state with little or no influence. We post many rubber stamp parliaments in dictatorships. We post North Korean show elections with no meaning whatsoever. US midterm elections are a major national election with big global influence and interest. The election is real and determines which party controls the legislature in the World's most powerful country. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any count of actual votes, paying attention to their wording, gives a 12-6 support to post this change of government. Can an admin please honor this overwhelming support? Am I missing sumfing? μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, have you even read the constitution, Bzeezil? The Senate approves all treaties, Supreme Court nominations, Cabinet positions, and impeaches. Nor does any law pass without its consent. You seemed to have missed sumfin, and it's still two to one above in favor of posting given the change of majority party, μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot allow American interests to dominate this institution. To post this election, and to not have posted the one that took place in St Thomas and Prince, that's a travesty. I cannot believe that this is being tolerated. If we are in the business of rejecting elections for being parochial matters, we must uniformly apply that principle. This is a purely parochial matter, and should not appear here. The minutiae of some old American rag is hardly of any importance. Instead, we should focus on thinking about the consequences of our actions, and how we shame Wikipedia by giving preference to American postings that are of little interest abroad. RGloucester — ☎06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An absolutely absurd claim. Of little interest abroad? Weird how it's the top article on the BBC, the Guardian (UK edition), the Times of London, and the Financial Times (UK homepage). Or that it's got links on the main pages of news sources in countries from China to Australia to South Africa.--Yaksar(let's chat)07:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be absurd. This isn't April 1. Of course we are posting this news story. Consensus is not determined by counting votes, especially illogical, pointy or trolling ones. JehochmanTalk07:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments, which you not only have ignored but instead of responding to them directly, you've resorted to attacking two editors who have objected to your close and posting. I've never seen a news item posted to ITN against consensus so fast in my entire life. Clearly, there is something wrong here. At this very moment, many US states are still counting votes at this time, yet the only news outlet claiming victory is Fox News. Jehochman, I think you need to revert your close and have someone else review the consensus in this discussion. Your judgment in this matter is poor and should be reviewed. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull and support. Never thought I'd do that. I think this should be posted; however, I can't see how the above discussion can be described as consensus; to me, it looks like deeply divided opinion, and I don't think you can classify it as 'irrational' 'not...rational arguments' (and doing so swerves dangerously close to a personal attack, IMO). GoldenRing (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting. Please be more accurate. There is a strong consensus to post. Please read all the comments fully. You will see that some of the opposes say things like 'unless control changes' which it did. JehochmanTalk07:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jehochman. The opposes are based on policy and rational arguments, consensus is determined by the quality of arguments not multiple personal attacks by you, or false statements and misquotes. Every news index reports that votes are still being counted. I don't give a rat's ass about this election. What I care about is your extremely poor judgment in determining consensus and in posting this ITN before the votes had been counted. You can spout off all kinds of excuses, but this discussion shows you're wrong. There's no consensus for this to be added to ITN yet you added it anyway. That's the problem, Jehochman, and the fact that this concerns votes still being counted shows that you don't have the necessary judgment to work on ITN, as this kind of controversial posting requires careful deliberation and weighing of consensus. I've never seen anyone add this kind of controversial item to ITN this fast ever before, and your extreme hurry to do so in the face of no consensus is the issue. Frankly, I think you should be banned from ITN. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion maybe humble, yet it is also sarcastic and mistaken, as I explained on your talk page. Viriditas' comment is so far out, I can hardly respond. There have been no personal attacks on this thread, except the ones leveled by Viriditas. There were 12 supports to 7 opposes, and the supports won by force of logic (and numbers). It is verifiable that the election results were reported by major news outlets around the world, and that this was the top story. We have extensive, thoroughly updates articles about the election, so it is convincing to say that we should post them promptly for the sake of our readers. Thank you for your comments. JehochmanTalk14:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Keep No offence. Country with largest GDP has an election. Sounds like a good enough reason to post for me. Besides, all news is covering this75.73.114.111 (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Keep even if this isn't on ITNR (and I'm not going to try and work that out) this is a big news story. Lack of ITNR != can't post. In fact, this is getting more coverage than many elections that are on ITNR! BencherliteTalk11:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone neutral, reading the discussion above, there is consensus to post given shift in power. However as a suggestion can the posting admin (in this case Jechochman) please do not just discard all opposes by saying they are not based on policy or weren't rational. Its unhelpful as some opposes were very much rational. -- Ashish-g5515:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull now Even if it gets posted again a minute or two later by an admin who evaluates this properly. Like some of the others I object strongly to having by arguments labeled "not rational" when the reasons for my position were in the very post where I objected. Indeed in seems that even many of the supporters of posting eventually accepted this was not ITNR as I was asserting. That was done by reference to policy considerations which counters the second point used in justification of the post. Not that the arguments matter: "This isn't April 1. Of course we are posting this news story." Presumably therefore, it doesn't matter what gets decided here, Jenochman know best. I'm sorry but that attitude and this line of reasoning are not acceptable regardless of the outcome, and s/he needs to be admonished for it. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are forums for you to formally do so if that's what you want. I concede that there are people who believe this not to be ITNR but I don't believe that; we have also posted many elections where the (elected) head of state is not on the ballot. Either way, pulling this only to repost it is just wrapping this situation up in bureaucracy. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The item should remain posted. Under all the circumstances, the objections are entirely unpersuasive, although I grant that some are more sensible than others. There was consensus in support of posting when the item was posted and there is still consensus now (and frankly, if there weren't such consensus something would be seriously wrong). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to construe that as a reasoned and balanced evaluation of the discussion so I withdraw my request. A lot of aggro could have been avoided if it had been decided like that rather that in the derogatory terms used by Jenochman. And yes, there is something seriously wrong - current ITNR elections policy which is far too unselective, and whose reform has been repeatedly blocked by a few editors who refuse to accept that they need to show consensus for their arguments for continuing inclusion. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would regard it as self-evident that consensus does not exist for the current formulation, you only need to read through the current WT:ITNR and virtually every page of the archives to see that this is hotly contested and only a small minority are happy with the anything goes mentality for this one subject area above all others. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is disagreement on how to implement posting elections doesn't mean there is no consensus for posting them in general. If you wish to begin a discussion to remove or alter the listing, you are free to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support alt blurb There is no question now that this gain in house and switch in the senate is the case, the only question is how far the gains/switch go. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Arrest in 43-student Iguala, Mexico suspected mass kidnapping/murder
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Forty-three college students on their way to a protest were abducted in Iguala, Mexico in September. Authorities believe the former Mayor of the town and his wife, who became fugitives after the disappearance, masterminded their murder by the Guerreros Unidos drug syndicate. The couple, among Mexico's most wanted, were arrested Tuesday in Mexico City. Besides the size of the kidnapping (bodies have been found, but not identified) the involvement of a city mayor and his wife in a crime of such magnitude and their capture after a federal manhunt is notable in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a major event in the Iguala incident. The mayor and her wife became Mexico's most-wanted overnight, and their arrest is vital in the location of the students. I believe that only this and the eventual location and identification of the bodies are fit for ITN. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really what you meant, but I am reminded that Mexico's legal system usually assumes guilt and requires the accused to prove otherwise [6]. Judicial reforms, which are supposed to become effective in a few years, are supposed to change that, but we'll have to see what effect it has in practice. In the mean time, the word you are actually looking for is "convicted". As in they haven't been convicted yet. Dragons flight (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, in Mexico, you are presumed guilty as soon as you are charged. You are entitled (though not required) to try and use the legal system to prove otherwise. There hasn't been a court proceeding yet, but they would still be considered "guilty" because of the way the Mexican legal system is framed, with no presumption of innocence. Essentially, they were found "guilty" by the prosecutor who charged them with a crime, and now they would have to establish otherwise. There certainly hasn't been a final outcome by any means, which is presumably what you are asking about, but the concept of "guilty" / "not guilty" as practiced by much of the world doesn't map very well onto the Mexican legal structure. Dragons flight (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No court has convicted them of anything, which is probably the most relevant answer I can give you. The initial detention is pursuant to four other murders, with additional charges regarding the 43 disappeared students and various forms of corruption (e.g. accepting cartel bribes) still pending as far as I can tell. Dragons flight (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your patience in explaining this to me. Definitely still an oppose then, this is purely speculative and means nothing whatsoever other than making a few tawdry headlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support an ongoing item. Authorities are still looking for mass graves and other players involved. Maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing would make sense if we knew this were ongoing. (What's ongoing is corruption and the drug war.) What we know is 43 protestors in a bus disappeared at the end of September, 22 arrested policemen have implicated the couple, and that the Mayor and his wife were arrested today. Given they were the top wanted fugitives in Mexico and the number of people presumably murdered, today's developments are blurb-worthy, not ongoing material. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
?Epicgenius are you saying you oppose this as a blurb? If so, what do you nominate as the "ongoing" title? I can't think of anything shorter than Iguala, Mexico massacre, which begs the question. I suggest we vote on the nom as is or propose a fully formatted alternative. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both ITN and Ongoing. This is definitely ITN material when/if a conviction is handed down. But until then saying anything would be just crystal-balling. WinterWall (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is being said above is that in Mexico they wouldn't have been arrested unless the government had made a determination that they were guilty; that is why is is being proposed now. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conviction != charged. If this happened in a common law country and the suspect is both arrested and charged I would still oppose it. The guy's in jail already. He's not getting way. There's no hurry. Let's just wait for the conviction. WinterWall (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Winterwall seems to have missed the fact that these were not just charged defendants, they were federal fugitives on the Most Wanted list. Compare it to the many "drug king pins" we have listed. Given that fact, this is about to be marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A central key to this story is that the mayor and his wife were high profile fugitives; while it is not a conviction, their arrest ends that segment of the story, which is worth posting given the considerable effects it has had in Mexico. SpencerT♦C01:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are good BLP reasons for waiting for convictions, rather than posting arrests. Indeed, as WinterWall notes, this is a point that Medeis has made before. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this stage. As the above have already noted it seems premature prior to a conviction. If the claim is that the arrests are themselves notable the story boils down to "Wanted couple captured". That doesn't sound like ITN material to me. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is still 6 to 4 support, and the issue is not the indictment of a non-fleeing person but the capture of fugitives suspected in a single murder of 49 people. Guzman didn't disappear the day after 43 people went missing in the town of which he was mayor. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature: People can be arrested for a wide variety of reasons and ITN should not be used to needlessly sully a person's reputation. Combining a U.S. Consulate summary report on Mexican criminal law and the report in the FOX News story that the mayor and his wife are "in the custody of the Attorney General's Office" indicates the case is still being investigated and has not yet been turned over to a court to determine “probable responsibility". While it is difficult to make exact comparisons to common law equivalents, it is clear that events have not yet reached the equivalent of an indictment (formal charges). As a result it is far too early to post this item. --Allen3talk17:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we shouldn't be posting arrests / allegations (especially in relation to such a sensational crime) on the front page of one of the world's busiest websites, per the above opposes. BencherliteTalk17:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction the newsworthiness of the story here is not that a mayor was charged, but that he and his wife were on the run for over a month, and apprehended as the most-wanted fugitives in Mexico. I seriously suggest people actually read the article, especially regarding their flight on Sep 30, before treating this like a usual arrest at the scene or indictment and surrender negotiated by lawyers. The fact a former president was invoved is also interesting. I can't think of a single comparable story. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously you can't, because the incumbent in the Philippine case turned himself in three days later in a surrender negotiated by lawyers. No trial is needed to show that the couple in this case were month-long fugitives at the top of the nation's most-wanted list. The nomination has nothing to do with them being convicted, but on the run and captured. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
OpposeSupport Though she was a former world triathlon champion and her death seems to have been very sudden - the article is barely long enough to be called an article. Challenger l (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to meet DC2 as important to her field. News stories describe her as very influential to her sport in Australia. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose In my mind some combination of the sum "quality article + major news event" is needed from my point of view. Shortcomings in one aspect can be made up for in others (that is, lesser events with outstanding articles; or major events with less quality articles would both be postable) Our article is very minimal, so to counteract that the death would need to be a major, headline event. I don't see that. If we could flesh out the article some (it's BARELY more than a stub) with some significant biography of her life, I'd change this to support. But right now, I can't see either interest OR article quality as being a reason to support this. --Jayron3213:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, no indication of update or sources given. I have not seen this noted in any of the news aggregators I frequent. Was she a medal winner? μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for my opposition was not the existence of news articles about the person's death, so providing those does not alter anything. --Jayron3212:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your intent is to help, NG39, rather than swamp, put the two or three best references, preferably from different continents, in he nomination template, and give the diff of the update. Throwing stuff to see what sticks doesn't convince me to do the nominators work for him. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Subject was not at the top of her field (no Olympic medals), and was not well-known outside of Australia. --Tocino06:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that someone be well known worldwide(in fact purely geographic objections are considered invalid as stated on this page), only that they meet one of the 3 RD criteria. In this case, according to news stories about her death, she was very influential to her sport in Australia. While she won no Olympic medals, she won three World Championship Gold medals and other medals. "Very important" to a field doesn't necessarily mean "top of her field". 331dot (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support. I'm Australian, but just for some perspective, the Melbourne Cup has the second-largest purse ($6.2 million) of any horse race, and this year's race was attended by over 100,000 people and had around $800 million gambled on it. IgnorantArmies10:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, but since these things often don't get posted on ITN until days after the event, it doesn't hurt to put something down that will stop other editors/admins from just scrolling past. IgnorantArmies12:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a surprisingly large number of articles about this event. May I suggest changing blurb to accurately capture the theme of the articles? JehochmanTalk13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic State militants claim to have captured the Jahar gas fields in the Syrian province of Homs, the second gas field they have captured in a week. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Unsurprisingly, coverage is already a lot fuller (and the story seems to be bouncing between the top 2 and 3 on google news). Also front page of BBC News, which is surprising for a US radio host.--Yaksar(let's chat)23:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-known, national radio figure. When Car Talk finished its run, it was getting 3.3 million listeners per week, which is pretty big for a radio broadcast. List of most-listened-to radio programs would place the show at 13th on the list; it was also on the air for 25 years on a national level, carried by 660 stations. That's an impressive run for a host. --Jayron3222:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak support I'm conflicted on this because I do think they (as the brothers) are well known in the States, but it's very difficult to qualify his as top of the field for radio broadcasting and considering international reknown. I'd opt on support posting, but I think this is a very middle-of-the-line case. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very minor media figure who meets no ITN criteria. Certainly not an award winner, top of his field, or influential in any way. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking radio, not all media(which would disqualify many people from RD if that broad a category was required). 3.3 million is nothing to sneeze at for a radio program. The article states he and his brother won a Peabody Award for "distinguished achievement and meritorious public service". 331dot (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I agree that the Peabody alone is not enough for this to be a posted recent death. However, I think the rationale of being one of the most recognized figures in both public radio and entertainment radio is what this should be base more on. Cheers, Yaksar(let's chat)16:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Minor figure as part of a public radio programme on motorcars in one country. Doesn't meet any of the criteria for RD. I don't see how such a person is "top of his field", or any such similar thing. RGloucester — ☎20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was (and its reruns still are) one of the top rated and listened to radio programs. This is making some news in the UK and Canada, indicating some level of notability outside the US. Radio broadcasting is still a field. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Well-known in one particular country because of contributions to one particular field in that country. Does not meet criteria for RD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Demiurge1000: As stated on this page, purely geographical objections are not valid. There is no requirement for worldwide renown or worldwide effects on a field. What matters is if this man meets the recent deaths criteria; the relevant one in this case #2- "very important" to their field. Also note this person has gotten notable coverage in the UK. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's not what you said originally(well-known in one country.....). Have you examined the page and reporting on his death? Had the top-rated radio program for many years(even in reruns). I am not proposing a new article; only saying that he clearly was known outside of the US if UK media reported his death. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was in the movie Cars and other TV programs, even though he was not an actor. I think this demonstrates his notability as he is so well-known in his field that he is portrayed in other fields/media. Zeniff (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support doesn't matter if it is the tallest in whatever corner of the world, and posting this when construction started is "inappropriate" to put it nicely. What IS important about this is that this is The WTC. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nergaal. This has significance far beyond being the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, which would be important enough to post anyway. The opening of the building is the milestone we've been waiting for in previous discussions, and it's here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An opening is nothing more than a symbolic formal gesture, however this is the tallest building in the Western hemisphere, which is a noteworthy record for the front page. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull absolutely arbitrary event, let's just ignore that it took 14 years to build, the top third of the building is an empty shell, meant for show. It's basically a radio tower with a little skyscraper on the bottom. Certainly not influential or award winning or top of its field in any way. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per μηδείς. Basically the tallest building in the world if you exclude the bit with all the tall buildings in it, and restrict your definition of 'building' to exclude all the tallest ones. Posted after, oh, five hours of 'discussion'. slow clap GoldenRing (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The completion/occupancy of the primary building at the site of the 9/11 attacks is a notable event and not arbitrary, as it is a sign of recovery and moving forward. The Western Hemisphere is a common way of dividing the Earth and is also not arbitrary. There is no requirement that ITN events be "award winning" or "top of their field"(RD, yes, but not ITN in general) This is news around the world(including India) 331dot (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support A significant event which is being covered by major news sources, a good article (GA level even) to put on the main page. I can find no reason to object to showing off one of the better articles at English Wikipedia to the world on our front page. This is certainly a current event, and we have a great article about it. Why not post it? --Jayron3201:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support (possibly a conflict of interest vote; I am the editor who got this to GA status). Many media have been using this as a symbol for 9/11 recovery, etc. Besides, the article had a failed ITN nomination 2 years ago precisely because it didn't open; now it's open, so I think ITN is a good place to showcase the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose. Nik Wallenda's exploits are visually impressive (I enjoyed watching the Grand Canyon video), but ultimately of no great significance. Personally, I would say that if we are going to post world records, they need to be in areas that are frequently contested so that the achievement is clearly remarkable (e.g. fastest marathon race, greatest weight lifted, etc.). Esoteric world records, such as most consecutive jumps on pogo stick, probably shouldn't be on ITN. For all its pageantry and inherent risk, Wallenda's performances are ultimately more the latter than the former, in my opinion. For what it is worth, Wallenda was nominated twice in the past for walking Niagra Falls and walking the Grand Canyon. He was posted on ITN for the first but not the second. Dragons flight (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with a heavy heart. Chicago is a city with a special place in my heart, and I really do enjoy stunts like this, but this isn't going to sway me from completely agree with Dragons flight's reasoning. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This did get a decent level of coverage in the British breakfast news yesterday as overnight news but it fizzled out relatively quickly. I also sympathise with Dragon's Flight concerning the sheer number of records diminishing the category as a whole. There's more to records than Olympic style faster, higher, stronger records of athletic achievement but when the record becomes more about inclination and motivation than anything else it is beginning to sink a bit low. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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 [http://example.com] 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:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
