* '''Oppose''' he is on bail pending an appeal against his conviction. If the appeal is successful (i.e. the Candian court accepts he was tortured into pleading guilty by the Americans), then that may be a story worth posting. [[User:Athomeinkobe|AtHomeIn神戸]] ([[User talk:Athomeinkobe|talk]]) 06:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' he is on bail pending an appeal against his conviction. If the appeal is successful (i.e. the Candian court accepts he was tortured into pleading guilty by the Americans), then that may be a story worth posting. [[User:Athomeinkobe|AtHomeIn神戸]] ([[User talk:Athomeinkobe|talk]]) 06:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' a non-story. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' a non-story. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' A teen and Canadian citizen who was tortured at Gitmo by USA. [[User:Eulalefty|Eulalefty]] ([[User talk:Eulalefty|talk]]) 02:46, 9 May 2015 (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).
a prison break occurred in the Iraqi town of Al Khalis. More than fifty prisoners escaped in the break, including nine who had been facing terrorism charges. An estimated fifty other prisoners and twelve police officers died in the prison break. (BBC)
Russia and China agree to a US$2 billion fund for agricultural investments in both countries. (CNBC)
Burkina Faso and Niger agree to exchange 18 towns in order to resolve a long-running border dispute with Burkina Faso receiving 14 and Niger 4. (AFP via The Guardian)
According to the Centre Daily Times, a Pennsylvania State University undergraduate student, Jon S. Steindorf, 23, goes missing, vanishing without a trace, the day his parents had expected him to graduate from the University, only to find when they arrived at 4 PM that he had dropped out in the fall 2014 semester. He was last seen by his roommate at 11 AM; he is brown-haired and blue-eyed, and he may be toting a red backpack and riding a black bicycle. State College, Pennsylvania police have put out a missing persons alert for him. (New York Daily News via MSN)
The Conservative Party has won a majority in the 2015 general election, enabling them to lead without requiring a coalition government. The Scottish National Party claims all but three seats in Scotland. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: This case, according to our article about the disappearance, helped start the missing children's movement, and Patz was one of the first missing children to have his face on a milk carton. Everymorningtalk00:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: If this is really significant, the blurb doesn't convey why. This is a 45-year-old case and Etan Patz isn't exactly a household name. The blurb doesn't even identify his nationality. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the CNN link in the nomination, the case "sparked an era of heightened awareness of crimes against children." Also, an article in the Guardian states that "For a whole generation of US parents, and children, the words Etan Patz are haunting." [1] I have modified the blurb. Everymorningtalk00:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a cause celebre in the NYC area since it happened, and the victim's name is certainly known by people old enough to remember the case, but only a conviction might have merited posting, a mistrial certainly doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Oppose This is basically a local crime story. It was a big deal back in the 70's but seems to have fallen off everyone's radar outside of New York over the decades. Also this is a mistrial which does not end the case definitively. We usually only report major criminal trials after a a conviction or acquittal.
Scores of flights are cancelled after a fire devastates part of terminal three at Rome'sFiumicino Airport. The fire was triggered by an electrical fault. (AFP via News24)
The wreck of the migrant boat which sank in April 2015 with 700 people on board is located by the Italian Navy 136km off the Libyan coast at a depth of 375m. (AFP via News24)
The Royal Navy's HMS Bulwark rescues 110 migrants from a dinghy off the coast of Libya, the first for a British ship during 2015. (BBC)
Support pending news stability The event is important, but the article has some questions that should be the type that should be easily answered within a day of the event - it's currently a bit confusing (why were all those ambassadors and spouses on board for example?) It needs just a bit more backing up from the news to make the article in better shape. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the Philippine ambassador to Pakistan might not have an article because of systematic bias rather than lack of notability. But please, rave on. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No raving, just a question. I'm sure the Azerbaijani ambassador to Mongolia is notable too. If these individuals aren't considered notable by Wikipedia standards, we rarely (if ever) have standalone minor military crash articles in which they have perished. I'm just saying how it is. But clearly you're having a bad day. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They had a bad day. I'd say those ambassadors are as notable as any other ambassador. The lack of an article doesn't imply lack of notability and arguing otherwise leads nowhere. Brandmeistertalk20:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well take it up with the aviation project whose guidelines follow precisely what I've suggested, and hence the article is up for deletion. Lack of an article most certainly does imply lack of notability these days. If you can demonstrate that the individuals noted in the crash are notable per Wikipedia guidelines, so much the better, and the article will not be deleted. I look forward to seeing you save the day. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell what kind of day I'm having from one full sentence and a short piece of sarcasm? Remarkable. And your response in no way addresses the question of systemic bias: not every person who is in principle notable enough to merit an article will have one. This looks like exactly such a case. I haven't !voted on the story itself - I don't feel able to judge. But your objection seems unreasonable on the face of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Read the arguments, cancel your bad faith, do something about it, whatever, but don't accuse me of anything like that without having the balls to back it up. I have staunchly worked against the aviation project in many cases (just ask User:Ahunt for some examples) but in this case, we have a military accident with a few foreigners involved. It's embarrassing that you choose to use my adherence to guidelines as an excuse to lie about me and my motives. I always had a hint that you had a clue, but clearly that was a poor investment of good faith on my behalf. As I've said in the AFD, if you or anyone who keeps yelling about the purported notability of the deceased could be arsed to actually do something about it and write articles about them, we wouldn't have a problem. I look forward to seeing these new articles, then the AFD can close, my oppose can be struck and we're all good. But in the meantime, take your bad faith, and your lies, and stick them somewhere appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle for notability of victims, it is not true that AfD's have to be resolved before posting, if it were, any editor could unilaterally veto any ITN nom by submitting an AfD, which are almost never resolved until an item is stale. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to write down that the bad faith use of an AfD to veto an ITN nomination is prohibited; that seems self-evident. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Khadr was the youngest person to be held by the US in Guantanamo. He was also, according to the Reuters link above, "the first person since World War Two to be prosecuted in a war crimes tribunal for acts committed as a juvenile." The Globe and Mail says that this decision ends "a saga that started in the Canadian citizen’s childhood in Osama bin Laden’s training camps, absorbed the attentions of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Supreme Court of Canada and polarized the country." [2] Seems significant. Everymorningtalk01:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "on bail" implies that he is still considered a criminal by authorities, just not held in captivity. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given two jihadis shooting up a free speech event and then being shot to death by a rather good off-duty police marksist was dismissed as american gun violence (!), I doubt this will ever be posted even if he does commit another war crime. μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he is on bail pending an appeal against his conviction. If the appeal is successful (i.e. the Candian court accepts he was tortured into pleading guilty by the Americans), then that may be a story worth posting. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating 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.
Oppose running anything of the sort on the basis of exit polling. This nomination, and especially the specific claim in the blurb, is premature by at least 6 hours. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry; I was in no way suggesting posting exit poll results; simply that I based the current blurb on that. I fully expect it to change and nothing should be posted until we have the actual results. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the actual results are known and not just the exit poll projections (probably 6-12 hours unless things end up unexpectedly close and in need of recounts), but yes a blurb should eventually be posted. If known in the near future, a blurb should probably also mention who recieves/retains the prime minister position. Dragons flight (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the actual results come in. No posting until then, because if expert opinion is anything to go by, these exit polls are a bit off. Also recommend re-writing the blurb, in BE. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)00:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the SNP wins every constituency they contest, which seems like a real possibility at this point, that should probably be mentioned in the blurb. They're looking to increase their share literally from one-tenth of the seats in Scotland to all of them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Liberal Democrats have held onto Orkney & Shetland. Unclear whether Labour is going to eke out any of the working-class constituencies in Glasgow or Edinburgh where they've traditionally done very well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a strong case to be made that RP is a degraded version of the English language. Given "plurality" is a Latin word, calling it "North American" is a bit on the other side of silly. In any case, the right side won decisively in Britain, so we don't need to worry about testing comprehension of the term in reality. μηδείς (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, it looks like the Tories have garnered enough seats to govern outright. The party is now projected to win 327 to 330 seats, more than the tipping point of 326 in a House of 650 (discounting the fact that the Sinn Fein MPs will, as always, refuse to take their seats in Westminster). -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose per Kudzul, assuming the outright majority is confirmed and the relevant article has been sufficiently twisted. μηδείς (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb ii once confirmed. The word "plurality" is quite inappropriate (or did I miss the UK Primaries??) Only 12 seats left to declare now. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC) (although the biggest news is actually the SNP result)[reply]
NOTE: As of right now, our article reports the Tories winning 302 seats, yet several people above are noting they are projected to win 327+seats. We should be sure to get it right, because the difference is a Big Deal, since 302 would still require them to hold a coalition with the LibDems, while 327 would be an absolute majority. It would make a big difference in which blurb we should run, and if the blurbs that imply an absolute majority are correct, then our article is WRONG, and shouldn't be posted. If the bolded article is correct, then we should run with a blurb that states they won a relative majority and would need to form a coalition government. Let's get this right! --Jayron3211:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it's wrong but you're wrong that it would "require them hold a coalition with the Lib Dems. With eight seats, that wouldn't help get them over 325 from the 302 currently stated. And it's not 327 in any case, it's 326, but because Sinn Fein don't take their seats, and the speaker doesn't vote, it's more like 323 for absolute majority. In any case, Cameron is on his way to see the Queen to ask permission to form the next government, job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The "302" you refer to is actually the results of the previous election, hence why UKIP have two seats (whereas they now actually have one). I'm not sure why our lead infobox here isn't like the one in the 2010 article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 Con currently have 325. While this is mathematically 1 short of an overall majority, the Speaker doesn't vote, so they have a technical majority now. Or we could wait a teeny bit longer for number 326 to arrive. Either way, ready to post very soon. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment I was considering posting Alt#2 as the consensus choice, with several ITN regulars saying it was ready (and after an e/c I see TRM has marked it as such). But a couple of concerns got in the way. First, is the article really ready? I see some updated information added to the lead, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in the body of the article. The Coalitions section also seems outdated. And the infobox has 2010's results. I know it's going to be constantly updated, but is this in a satisfactory state now? Second, a comment from Martin23230 above sounds correct to me, but no one agreed or disagreed with him, and as an American I don't know enough to know the answer. Isn't he right that the last link should be to the House of Commons page, not the Parliament page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Martin23230's comment, on both counts: the repetition of "United Kingdom" is ugly and unnecessary, and it's the House of Commons they have a majority in, not Parliament as a whole. I believe the blurb ought to be as follows: "In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Partywins a majority of seats in the House of Commons." Also, they have 327 seats now, so the blurb can be posted as soon as the article is ready. Waltham, The Duke of12:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the body of the article is becoming better updated all the time, and the still un-updated and now-less-important-than-everyone-thought coalitions section is not reason to hold things up further. I'll post the revise blurb (I am assuming that almost everyone who liked Alt #2 would like the revised blurb better). Give me a couple of minutes to do this right, I don't do ITN much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the section's image to one of David Cameron and inserted our standard "led by [politician's name]" language. —David Levy13:31, 8 May 2015 (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: ITN does not feature very much business news, even though this is a major aspect of the news media. We should strive to change that, and here is an excellent opportunity to do so. This merger is one of the largest of the year and reflects a notable trend in pharmaceuticals. That is, that treatments for rare diseases are more valuable than treatments for common diseases. As such, the significance goes beyond just the $ figure of the deal (See analysis by NYT, AP, & WSJ linked above). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC) ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since they both make only rare disease drugs, that isn't surprising. As I said, part of the notability here is the story of how much money these type of drugs are becoming worth to the industry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose once again, a capital merger that results in nothing but layoffs for middle management; not ITNworthy. Business news should consist of things like new patents, products, and innovations, not economies of scale. I'd support the decision by McDonald's to roll out a 24 hour breakfast menu over this. μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right or wrong, new products have zero chance of making ITN. Even the largest ones have been rejected by a large majority. And a patent has even less chance - saying one will be important is pure speculation, I'm afraid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose., Two companies that are basically unknown to the average reader, for less than the typical "big" merger numbers, merging in an industry in which mergers are a major mode of doing business. (In pharm, if your latest product(s) are a failure, you look for a buyer, and if the product(s) are a success, buyers come looking for you.) Abductive (reasoning) 15:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I've never heard of either of these companies, and I'm generally pretty good about paying attention to this kind of stuff. That's not to say it isn't significant, but I really don't think the average reader is going to know these names at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
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.
I'd dispute it's local news, it is definitely been national news, it's certainly been grabbing the headlines at all major Polish news outlets last few days Abcmaxx (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not of sufficient size for posting, and would need some work to come across as professional encyclopedic prose. Even then the POV is also rather heavy, with the incidental death from a rubber bullet of a fan who'd rushed the field being described as "not deserving death". I think an AfD might be a more likely outcome than an ITN posting at this point, although I thank Abcmaxx for the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
Another milestone was passed, at 400ppm. Although is "just another milestone" quite a few news publications are running news on it [3]. Nergaal (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We posted the 400ppm milestone once already. I suppose this is technically different in some way, but we are going to need some explanation as to why it should be posted again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And it will likely be broken again more in the future. Unless there's a established scientific level of significant note (for example, a level that would be acutely critical to the survival of a flora or fauna species), we should not report this. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Thaddeus points out, we posted a couple years ago when the Mauna Loa Observatory (the most famous measurement site) hit 400 ppm. The global average, a synthesis of many stations, has marginally greater scientific value, but I don't think it is sufficiently important as new information to warrant posting. Dragons flight (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
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: This is pretty major news and seems like a solid candidate for ITN. However as of right now it's breaking news and the article needs updating. So my nom is conditional on that. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While this is great news, the story is far from over. The court sent part of the issue back to a lower court, and it could always be appealed to the Supreme Court. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or Section 215 can be changed when the Patriot act is up for reauthorization. WSJ "How the legal case proceeds depends greatly on what Congress does next. If lawmakers reauthorize the current version of the Patriot Act, the case will likely head to the Supreme Court. If Congress passes a modified version of the law, the lower and appeals courts will likely have to take a fresh look at the new language to see if it passes muster. In their ruling, the judges also noted that if Congress decides to approve some version of the phone-data-collection program in coming days, then the privacy issue could be revisited in court."-- Aronzak (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (Oppose posting now) This will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, whom may overturn it. Likely, the government will continue the program until such an appeal is completed, as there's nothing in this ruling about an immediate injunction. If the program is cancelled as a result of this or a new law, that would be the preferred time to post. Mamyles (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
99% of cases that get to the appellate courts stop there. The Supreme Court hears very very few cases on appeal. This case was decided unanimously and there are no conflicting decisions from other appeals courts. I think it extremely unlikely that the SCOTUS will take this on appeal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable ruling by a court that is the highest court in normal cases. The news is now, not when the Republicans decide to continue the law anyway or the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Substantial international attention is being paid to issues of privacy and anti-terrorism legislation (Eg Canada has just passed an unpopular anti-terror law) and this has international public interest because many countries have very prominent debates about the role of government - citizens deserve to know this update. Even if it goes to appeal this is news in and of itself. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anyone thinks this decision will actually change practices, I've got some beachfront property in Kansas I can sell you for a really good deal. --Jayron3216:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment suggests that your opposition is based on a disagreement with the news as opposed to the actual ITN worthiness of the event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the Patriot Act expires on June 1, and needs to be re-authorized. Public discussions about Section 215 will result from this ruling - even if the NSA's practises don't change. Public attention and public debate over changes to Section 215 will follow. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose While it is important, it was not ruled on a constitutional basis and was sent back to a lower court for review. The case is far from over. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's speculation that this will have any influence on the upcoming renewal. I'd be ignorant to not assume that the GOP will try to codify this into the law as to short circuit the court ruling, but that's a guess, and that's not sufficient for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This idea that the Patriot Act is a GOP invention is way off base. Both Clinton and Obama voted in its favor. It's true GWB didn't veto the bill, but it's long been unclear whether he understood what the veto power was. μηδείς (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The act came in following 9/11 and had less scrutiny than if it were proposed right now. Some of the senators who voted for it say they didn't anticipate how section 215 is used. Republicans are split, with Mike Lee and Rand Paul opposing mass surveillance, and Mitch McConnell and John McCain among those supporting authorizing it explicitly. Both sides have to have this debate publicly, and with the public split on the issue they'll have to be accountable to the voters. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically the Tea Party Republicans and the Democrats with any independent moral fibre left oppose this. The go-along establishment spending bill fascists-of-the-middle in neither party want to be seen as opposed to anything. We can wait for the omnibus bill-slash-Supreme Court decision. μηδείς (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
A French investigation finds that Andreas Lubitz, perpetrator copilot of the murder-suicide disaster of Germanwings Flight 9525 had practised rapid descent on a previous flight. (BBC)
Bollywood star Salman Khan is convicted of culpable homicide for running over five men in Bombay in 2002, causing the death of one, and is sentenced to five years imprisonment. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: This is not merely a case of pushing the origins of birds back a few years (which alone would be notable enough, IMO), but rather a substantial find that will change our understanding of bird evolution. The reason being is that this bird is highly developed - more so than previously found less ancient species - suggesting that diversion occurred earlier and more rapidly than previously thought. Paleontologist Stephen L. Brusatte, who is not affiliated with the team that found it, is calling Archaeornithura "one of the most important [finds] over the last decade". --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A noteworthy scientific find, far more significant than a dinosaur with an unusual wrist structure or whatever we posted last month. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yi qi had an entirely new and unknown wing structure. This bird is simply the earliest yet found to have a fan of tail feathers like modern birds. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these "push back the date" fossils typically are not particularly significant. All you have to do is look at previous examples, and you'll see how few scientific articles result from them. No, what is scientifically interesting are missing link fossils or even better, living transitional forms such as Lokiarchaeota. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Modern bird" is incorrect - this usually refers to the group Aves (or Neornithes). Archaeornithura is the oldest member of the lineage including modern birds, plus some but not all of their extinct relatives (Ornithuromorpha). I worry the significance of this might be lost on a lay audience without much more in-depth explanation, and trying to boil it down to a sound byte as in the suggestions above render the facts of the news item incorrect. "The reason being is that this bird is highly developed - more so than previously found less ancient species" On the contrary, this find was not only expected but had previously been predicted. The oldest "opposite bird", the sister lineage to ornithuromorphs, had been found in the same aged rocks a decade or two ago, so we knew these types of birds must have also been around at that time and that the divergence had to have been earlier. The press releases are severely over-blowing the significance of this find, unfortunately; or, at least, mis-stating the significance. IMO it's interesting because, like Tiktaalik, we predicted this should exist and then found it in the right age and location. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinoguy2: Can you suggest an alternative blurb that is more precise? Using more words is not an issue if needed... Science uses phrases such as "The earliest known relative of modern birds" and "dawn of modern birds". And their quoted expert remarked "New bird fossils seem to come out every week now, and they are revolutionizing our understanding of bird evolution. But of all the new specimens, this is one of the most important found over the last decade". Surely you aren't accusing Science of getting it wrong a buying into hype for a paper they didn't even publish? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the ALT blurb posted above. To answer your question, phrases like "dawn of modern birds" would be meaningful if this were the oldest known modern bird (Aves/Neornithes; a member of the crown group), but it isn't. "The earliest known relative of modern birds" is also an objectively meaningless phrase. Archaeopteryx is related to modern birds and is older, as is Tiktaalik, really. This new one is more closely related than either of those, but there are also closer relatives that happen to be younger (like Ichthyornis. So yes, I'd have to say Science is being a bit sensationalist here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To put this another way, Ornithothoraces, a clade that contains modern birds and enantiornithines, was already known to originate 130.7 Ma ago. We now know it's daughter clade, Ornithuromorpha, arose at the same time (as you would predict in an evolutionary branching event). Ornithurae is a more inclusive clade containing modern birds plus things like Ichthyornis and Hesperornis - this arose 87 Ma ago and could be called the dawn of modern birds. Actual modern birds arose 85 million years ago - you could justifyably argue that that's a better thing to call the dawn of modern birds, since it is, well... the dawn of modern birds, not one of their ancestors. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a very strong opinion about posting or not posting this, but agree with DinoGuy2 that the proposed blurb doesn't appear accurate and can't go up as it is. Formerip (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some additional material to the article indicating Archaeornithura's place in taxonomic history. I believe we have consensus for the altblurb and are ready to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready I have removed the ready tag since besides the nominator there are only two supports, and looking at the comments it's clear the general consensus is one of doubt, not support. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't count votes on Wikipedia, but if we did there would be four total supports (not three) and zero opposition. The concerns of the neutrals have been addressed through a new blurb and through editing the article. Unless there are specific concerns that remain unaddressed, then I reiterate that I think we are ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just to make it formal, mwahahahaha. This being posted wouldn't offend me, but it's just an incremental pushback, as noted by others above who have also not noted their support. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only Abductive's comment is about the incremental nature, and I don't think you can infer opposition from it. Those by Formerip and Aronzak are about the blurb (addressed) and article (thought to be addressed). You certainly can't infer anything resembling opposition from those. At worst, that makes 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 slight lean oppose (Abductive, "typically are not particularly significant"), and 1 slight lean support (Aronzak, "notability might be there"). 4:1 or 5:2 is usually sufficient consensus, although obviously the actually comments need to be assessed, not the numbers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While Dinoguy2 has stated his support of a specific blurb as opposed to another, neither he, Aronzak, nor Formerip who have all commented on the thread, has said he actually supports the nomination itself. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[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: The Guardian article linked above describes this fund as "unprecedented" and "the first gesture of its kind in America". This therefore seems to be a significant "first". Everymorningtalk02:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this is an extrajudicial attempt to limit damages. Were such cases to go to civil trial they might win and have won huge verdicts. From the Guardian article: "Chicago has for years substituted large cash payouts – victims of police abuse received more than $50 million in 2014". In this case victims could at most be given $100,000 each, and money would go towards "building a memorial". This is simply offering a settlement in hope that would-be plaintiffs won't recover much larger sums. What is unprecedented is not the sum, but that the city council is trying to buy off litigants preemptively. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
New oldest galaxy
Article:EGS-zs8-1 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Scientists announce the discovery of EGS-zs8-1, the oldest and most distant galaxy ever observed. (Post) News source(s):AP, NY Times Credits:
Nominator's comments: Significant scientific advance that highlights how new technologies are increasing our understanding of the universe's early history. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting way of skirting the no "meh" policy. Agree, basically, that a 5% increment doesn't add much to our knowledge, although I supported the last nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it matters (maybe you are just joking) as the label is for the discussion header only. But, I suppose either would be correct. "New (record for) oldest galaxy" or "Oldest (amount of time ago it became a) new galaxy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Incremental, article as written gives no explanation why galaxies can't or shouldn't be as old as this one. It seems that it just so happens that this galaxy was a bit bigger and so its light reached the Earth. But no scientific value whatsoever, I'm afraid. Abductive (reasoning) 06:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[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: Major development in a high-profile scandal. This specific development has attracted coverage in news sources both in the US and elsewhere. Everymorningtalk23:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although it was a lead story on CBS News this evening, unless something comes of it I don't think it's ITN material. For example, if Brady were given a major suspension, or if the Patriots were forced to vacate their Super Bowl win. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If the Patriots / Brady are hit with extraordinary sanctions as a result of this, then I could see including it on ITN; however, I don't think the publication of the investigative report by itself warrants inclusion. Dragons flight (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose A sports team used under-inflated balls in one of the thousands of ball games played this year. Seriously? You think this is for ITN? Stephen02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Like Stephen, my first thought when I saw this here was "Seriously?" If they revoke the Super Bowl championship, I'd reconsider, but they'll likely get a slap on the wrist and nothing will change, making this not an ITN-worthy sports story. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the feedback, I'll withdraw this nom and try to assess the significance of stories more carefully before making any more nominations here. Sorry. Everymorningtalk02:10, 7 May 2015 (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.
Nominator's comments: I'm reasonably certain this will be rejected, but it deserves a chance, largely because of how shocking this is. Alberta has been ruled by a Conservative Party for over 40 years, and now they have elected the most left-leaning major party in Canada. It's the equivalent of the Texas of today electing a very left-leaning Governor (and I'm aware that there have been Democrat governors of Texas in the past, so don't bother pointing that out) or a riding in England electing an MP from the Scottish National Party. It's also getting some coverage all over the world. To deflect an almost certain to appear argument, no I don't think every provincial/state election deserves ITN coverage. However, if the election has a genuinely surprising or historic result, I think it merits consideration. And this one certainly was genuinely surprising and historic. -- Scorpion042220:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality, which includes an orange maintenance tag, and weak oppose on notability. (Is it possible to elect a member of the SNP in an English constituency?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on British politics, so I couldn't think of an appropriate example. Basically, think of the most conservative region of the UK, then imagine them electing the most left wing major party. It's that kind of surprise.
Comment At this provincial level this is rather a political tidbit, if it were the first Prime Minister from a fooian party in foo years, then yes. Better for DYK instead. Brandmeistertalk20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No mention of oil sands or the Keystone pipeline - the only issue of interest outside Canada based on Canada/US energy issues. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the blurb is rather basic, largely because I wasn't sure what to put in there. There are a lot of things you could note, but length is an issue. -- Scorpion042221:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I wanted there to be a section on the implications this has for oil sands/Keystone in the article body with good sourcing (not the blurb). Agree with Resolute below - this is a highly technical article about the provincial result (not about the broader implications) and is more suited to a feature article on the specifics rather than news coverage.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This election was a historic bloodbath that political science students will be studying for generations. But the nuances and historical factors that make this such a fascinating result aren't really suited to an ITN entry. It's actually the kind of thing that would be best taken to FA for a main page appearance that way. Resolute22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose. I understand that this is significant in Canadian politics, but I agree with what Resolute has said in that it would be hard to post a concise blurb for this essentially sub-national election. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A very exciting election campaign, certainly, but we haven't posted provincial/state election news in the past. I see no reason to change that this time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolute sums it up nicely. Canuck89 (what's up?) 06:26, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Comment Notley wasn't elected premier of Alberta. She was designated premier of Alberta. In the Westminister system, the head of government isn't elected. The only position Notley was elected to, was MLA for her district. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was closed by Kudzu1 at 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC) but I discovered precedent and I feel it's worth noting. On my talk page an IP informed me that in spite of what several users claim, we have in fact posted provincial election results at least once. In May 2011 we posted the West Bengal state assembly election and here's the ITN discussion. I don't know if it changes much, but it does show that the opposition based solely on "we don't post provincial elections results" should be disregarded. -- Scorpion042222:07, 7 May 2015 (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.
Weak support in principle. Certainly important in terms of British soul music, but is that too narrow a field? Article does need work to make it more than a collection of more-or-less random info. Maybe there can be some summarizing from the sourced parts of the Hot Chocolate article. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvement. Importance set by OBE , however, while the sourcing in the article is fine, the article begs to explain why he is important and meriting of the OBE (which i don't doubt exist, just not presented). A paragraph on his importance/reception/legacy or the like would help significantly. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment that, although maybe we can take UK honours into account, they shouldn't be considered an automatic pass. They're given to a lot of people, including many who clearly would not pass the RD criteria (teachers, doctors, community leaders, public sector managers, even a crossing lady once, I believe). Even with celebrities, they are often not a direct reflection of the recipient's achievements in their field, but may take into account their support for a charity or work they have done for the royal family. I'm not saying this means we shouldn't post Errol Brown, but we should base it on an overall assessment of his importance in his field. Formerip (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. While he no doubt had a successful career, six hit songs in 20 years does not seem to quite meet the criteria of "very important to his field." His awards, while also indicating a successful career, are not particularly prestigious or unique. Member of the Order of the British Empire (most junior grade in the Order) currently has 100k living members. An Ivor Novello Award is given to 22 composers per year in one country, so is also very broad. Frankly, if awards like these are the bar for being posted, we will have a dozen musicians a year just from the UK. Mamyles (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one number one hit in the UK, and a number 2 as a solo artist. Neither top of nor influential in field. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chart placings are not everything. As I indicated above, if you go for the field of British soul music, then he is certainly important - probably the best known and most commercially successful British soul singer of the late 70s and early 80s. Definitely, to say he was not influential is completely wrong. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, at the point I am writing this, his huge influence has exactly zero bytes of text at British soul. I'm familiar with the song, but one-hit-wonders are not commonly RD-level important, unless for other reasons. --Jayron3201:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a one-hit wonder. According to the article, Hot Chocolate had 14 top ten singles in the UK and 3 in the US. According to this source, they "created" British soul. On page 1! Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and for that type of article it's often just people writing about their own record collections.
This is why my support is based on significantly establishing his importance better. I know OBE's can sometimes be trivial but I really don't think that's the case here, WP's article just needs to be better established before ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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: Influential former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, known for the Wright Amendment promoting Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, as well as his resignation under fire. Article is in decent shape. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Quick glance shows that there are no problems with unsourced material in this article. On the subject himself, being Speaker of the House is a high position, even though he was only briefly in it. He was house majority leader for a full decade of his 35 years in Congress, which is a high role in American politics. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an out-of-office politician of this rank who died of old age would never be nominated if he were from Japan, Brazil or Indonesia. There's no striking accomplishment as speaker that would justify this, it's just systemic bias. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose long-serving politician gets old and dies. Ten a penny I'm afraid, not seeing any reason at all why this individual rises to the level of RD notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaker of the House meant he was at one time #3 in political power and office at one time. Resigned due to an ugly controversy, helped promote the building of an airport. Honestly, I am STILL not sure how notable that makes him. Challenger l (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some U.S. speakers of the House would be notable enough for inclusion. A person's job should never exclude them specifically for ITN. However, this speaker of the House had minimal impact on the national or international political scene. He's not Tip O'Neil or Newt Gingrich; perhaps if he lasted in office longer he would have been more politically significant. He wasn't. His most famous act was sponsoring a bill to give some extra business to his cronies. Meh. --Jayron3223:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. If he had been Speaker for longer, or accomplished something significant during his term, I would support, but he had little effect on the House or the nation. His scandal was relatively minor and he would be expected to promote an airport in his district or state. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't accept that he was an unimportant Speaker - for instance, he played a major role in opposing the Reagan Administration's policy on Nicaragua and brokering a peace agreement there that led to democratic elections. I think he clearly meets the criterion of having had a significant impact on his country or region. Neljack (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeknown for the Wright Amendment promoting Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in the nomination already implies that he wasn't important enough for RD. With even some former prime ministers from other countries not considered important enough for RD, it is hard to make the case that 2.5 years as leader of parliament are enough. major role in opposing the Reagan Administration's policy on Nicaragua - everyone who serves a few years as minister or speaker of parliament in any country is supposed to have a major role in something. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is 6 to 4 against, and stale; I haven't even seen it in the US news. Given the sexual-assualt scandal with his daughter's brother-in-law is even longer than the section on his speakership, I suggest an univolved editor close this. His being third in suggestion for the presidency (assuming the president and vice president both choked to death on a lunchtime lie) was rather a nasty joke. μηδείς (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[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: Khan has been described by the BBC as "one of Bollywood's biggest stars", and he is the 10th richest actor in the world. [4]Everymorningtalk12:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is effectively celebrity news, just one from India, not the United States or UK. The case is otherwise nothing out of the ordinary. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting downfall of a popular actor. However, I agree that it is closer to tabloid news than an event of note, internationally or nationally. Worth being in the current events portal, but not quite to the level of ITN. Mamyles (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Earlier this year we considered the sentencing of Aaron Hernandez as not a leading story. However, Mr Khan is a marquee name in his billion-dollar industry, compared to Hernandez's supporting name in his. As I'm new to this game, have we ever posted on a Hollywood actor being jailed for five years? '''tAD''' (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (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.
Nominator's comments: Significant and serious development in a high-profile murder case. According to the source, it is unusual for cases to be decided so quickly in Afghanistan. Kudzu1 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, support - judging by the society in that country, the fact that MEN have been sentenced to DEATH for the murder of a WOMAN is significant. With the unfounded allegations on which she was spitefully lynched, this is the equivalent of 1950s KKK members being sentenced to death for killing a black man on the spurious allegation he whistled at a white woman. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is only very interesting for people like you who don't know anything about Afghanistan. Half a year ago 5 men were hanged for raping a woman. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a decision of a primary court, that is by law not a final decision. The defendants have the right to have their case heard at an appeals court. And after that they might even ask the Supreme Court whether the rulings of the lower courts were according to the law. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the merits of this case, but practice here is to post a legal case upon conviction, not when all appeals have been exhausted. The reversal of a conviction in a noteworthy case often is noteworthy itself. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it is likely to be overturned is the same it is unusual for cases to be decided so quickly in Afghanistan that was cited as rationale for posting it to ITN - it was a rushed trial. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, far more relevant to ITN than all the sports articles that currently dominate it. This is ten thousand times more important than our current drivel about snooker, soccer, boxing, and horse racing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reluctantly, but this looks like a very messy trial that no-one has been satisfied by. It doesn't seem to be either a legal landmark or a resolution of the story. Formerip (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per FormerIP. Not seeing anything massively groundbreaking/world-impacting here. The Almightey Drill's point on this being a case of men being sentenced to death for killing a woman in a country where women have sub-standard rights is interesting, but I don't think that this is as groundbreaking as it seems. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the fact that no one has been satisfied with all the verdicts in such a large trial has nothing to do with the noteworthiness of the trial and verdict, which seems an important human right story from a place that used to user soccer fields for mass executions. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis Culwell Center attack: ISIS claims responsibility for the attack on an exhibition of drawings of the Prophet Muhammad in the American city of Garland, Texas. One of the suspects was previously interrogated and surveilled by the FBI having visited Somalia, and both suspects praised ISIS in social media. (Washington Post)
According to University of Toronto researchers Donald Branch and Stephen McCarthy, a combination of three HIV drugs—lamivudine, AZT, and tenofovir—shows some promise fighting at least a lab-modified version (which could not infect humans) of Ebola. (CNN)
Strong support as interesting news and notable discovery of works form a popular writer. I remember that last time we posted a news on a similar discovery in literature was Andersen's lost fairy tale few years ago, while we regularly post discoveries related to other arts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – According to AP, it's "a collection of dispatches written by Mark Twain when (he) was a young newsman," in 1865-66. That was before Twain (Sam Clemens) was accomplished as an author (Tom Sawyer, 1876; Huckleberry Finn, 1884). Might be prudent to await more info re whether they can legitimately be described as literary "works." Sca (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no article for it, only two sentenced put to a place where they don't belong. It needs an own article like the one for the already mentioned The Tallow Candle before it can be posted to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would strongly suggest that a better link target be found. If the letters themselves are notable as a whole, ala Silence Dogood, then that should be the article, then otherwise is should be Mark Twain. Yet unsure if this is ITN or not otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The correct article section for an update would be Mark Twain in Nevada#Correspondent. The section is extensive enough already (with only pre-existing material) that it could certainly be split (and I might do so later today). To be clear, what has been rediscovered here are some of Twain's writings from when he worked as a newspaper correspondent. Although many of his stories (some are known fiction, while others are real events) were already known, some had been lost in a fire at the newspaper's archive. These have now been recovered by coming the archives of other newspapers that republished them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first story I read on the letters, didn't make that clear. However, the description above of the recovered writing is still accurate - Twain continued to write for the Territorial Enterprise after he moved to San Fran. It does mean that splitting is essential though. It still makes sense to cover it with his other Territorial Enterprise stories, but not as part of his Nevada days article. See [5]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability 110 2,000 word columns showing Twain's distinctive style early in his career is nothing to sneeze at. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
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.
Oppose on quality, oppose on notability, seems like a reasonably identifiable individual but not really up there with the leaders in acting. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm a huge trekkie but this article doesn't meet the bar for FC. If it were one of the seven core cast members, sure, but not for a supporting character with no other major credits. Gamaliel (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm also a trekkie but she does not meet any of the RD criteria at all. This isn't the Star Trek wiki. 331dot (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
One or both nominated events are 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 with article update: The championship article is well sourced and updated, but there's parts of Bingham's article devoid of sourcing which is a nogo for BLP on front. But should be fixable. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notability is there. Quality is close, as Masem said. Just a few more citations needed in Bingham's career & statistics sections. Mamyles (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've thrown a few more citations into the early career. If we need cites on the stats I will ask a regular/expert because snooker is not my magnum opus here '''tAD''' (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work - career section is now fully sourced. I'm not an expert at sports statistics sourcing either, but would imagine that it could be as simple as referencing any popular statistics-focused sports website. Like here. Mamyles (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then please edit the blurb. We don't want to be putting this on hold to update an article which doesn't require updating '''tAD''' (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The winner's article is not so far off and I think Almighty Drill's additions are sufficient now for posting of that too. It would be a different situation if it was nearly all unsourced or the like. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two attackers, Elton Simpson, had linked himself to ISIL on Twitter before his attack on the exhibition of drawings of the prophet Mohammed at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas. He had been a member of a since-closed Phoenix mosque; he and his partner, 34-year-old Nadir Hamid Soofi, who had gone to college in Utah, had been known to and were investigated by law enforcement, but nevertheless, officers did not know that they were planning an imminent attack of this type, and they were not thought to be an imminent threat, despite having admired the late Anwar al-Awlaki, and swearing loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, prominent figures in al-Qaeda in Iraq and in ISIL, respectively. (CNN)
Italy reports that ten people have died and 5,800 people have been rescued in the Mediterranean Sea as people smugglers attempt to take advantage of calmer waters. (Reuters)
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.
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: Won a James Beard Foundation Award, described in our article on the award as "the Oscars of food". NY Times obituary describes him as "one of the most forceful food writers in the country." Seems to indicate importance in the field of food journalism. Everymorningtalk03:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Summer of Love, G. K. Chesterton, Rutgers, NYU, Notre Dame, Tikkun, Meatopia? This guy was a bit more than a food critic. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, over 60 people or institutions receive a James Beard Foundation Award every year, and his was shared. No evidence presented that he was on the top of any particular field, seems more like a case of many irons in the fire. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that many irons in the fire argues in favor (when compared to one iron in the fire) of his nomination? To are admiting he was important in more than one field. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "barely"? So only seven sections and only 21 sources? You won't post an AfD, you just want us to act as this article had been deleted? Clever. μηδείς (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not only that many receive this award, it is also an US-only award. He was a journalist and blog writer, and not even in the narrow field of food media there there is any indication that he was considered to be the best in the world. LoveToLondon (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"An US only award"? Should we complain LovetoLondon's native language isn't English? No, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive" is more than enough by which to weigh his contribution. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given that "everyone's a critic" there are likely only a handful of food critics that are not chefs that would ever be ITN, just as there are only a handful of film and book reviewers that would merit the same. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ozersky was a celebrated writer as a writer, and he organized his food events in London, England and San Antonio, Texas, to the praise of the New York Times and the Huffington Post. Rather than assert there are more qualified writers, please name those more qualified writers and link to them. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
Curtis Culwell Center attack: Two gunmen attacked the Curtis Culwell Center in the US city of Garland, Texas, which is holding an exhibition of drawings of the Prophet Muhammad. Both gunman were shot dead by police. Their car was found to contain no explosives. One security guard was hospitalized and is expected to recover. The attacks were reminiscent of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris in January 2015. ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack. (CBS Dallas Fort Worth)(CNN)
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: Leads BBC, New York Times, CNN, Reuters, and the Guardian. Seems to be significant with respect to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the US. Everymorningtalk17:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mellowed Fillmore; while not just "another police shooting"; the attack was thwarted without injuring any innocent people; and it was not entirely unexpected given the security that was present and the views of those putting on the event. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
Comment Note that this was nominated previously but with no article in place (presently at bottom of this page, but will likely be in archives soon). --MASEM (t) 17:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support given improvements to the article. Reports of 10 dead in protests against president seeking illegal third term, and use of force sanctioned by current military ruler, high government officials fleeing the country. [text was revised earlier today from original support pending μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)] μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is piss poor at the moment...it doesn't deal with the protests earlier than the week. However, in theory, it is a good start. Also, note, the military made a statement today that contradicted what Nkurunziza's government figures said (interior minister?). Its certainly picking up a la Burkina Faso sometime ago (over the same reasons).120.62.13.31 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality (needs significant expansion), weak oppose on notability (subject to change). Ten dead is not an overwhelming number, especially for an African country in a historically unstable and violent neighborhood, but if the protests escalate to a civil uprising or some sort of ethnic strife, or many more are killed, I'd be inclined to reconsider. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support with the new article improvements. I'm still not convinced this outbreak of violence is all that unusual, considering Burundi's place on the globe, but the situation seems to only be escalating there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is major event in a country that rarely (if ever) appears on the home page. It has all the makings of a revolution and we posted similar events like the 2014 Burkinabé uprising and 2015 Congolese protests. The death toll (which increases day by day and is comparable to the above mentioned protests) has nothing to do with the significance of the event. If the horse who won this year's Kentucky Derby is more significant than thousands of people in Burundi demanding political reform then I'm lost for words.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a crystal ball effect to assume it will be a revolution because of protests now. It could be, and when that happens, I'm pretty confident it will be ITN and possibly ongoing if it is violent. Right now, this is people reacting in a manner not inconsistent with the usual events in that areas of the world (for better or worse). --MASEM (t) 14:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is not consistent with "the usual events in that areas of the world"? ITN has at various times (and sometimes together) had Syria, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria for the Islamists activities...how is a protest that is both violent and ongoing with the further recent BF precedent different? Furthermore, how are sports championships then not "the usual events in that areas of the world"? Still more, how are elections then not "the usual events in that areas of the world"?120.62.26.167 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given these improvements opposes should reconsider their votes. The article shows much more in the news (vice president of the election comittee has fled the country amidst death threats) than just 10 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 11:18, May 5, 2015
I've looked again, and the article quality is still poor that doesn't lead me to see the importance here, but that's not to say that that can't be fixed. Particularily , reading the Background section, there's no narrative logic flow here; it should be better explained if the revolt is due to a already poorly-seen president trying to keep his power grasp by running a 3rd term even if against their constitution (which sounds like it is the case) or another reason. Basically for purposes of article quality leading to importance, we need better explanation of why this revolt is different and that might need to be explaning what the deal is with the current president and why looking for a 3rd term is angering the citizens. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't phrase it as if it were somehow ITN policy. There's no requirement that we explain how this hurricane or mass murder is "different" before they are posted. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on notability and weak oppose on quality. Better than before, but not good enough. Clearly we have no such thing as an ITN policy, but nevertheless, the article is lacking, poor quality, not something we should be putting onto our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready The consensus of commenting editors is in support (two to one even taking into account the nominator voted without saying "as nominator") and the article is hugely updated, much larger than necessary for a new article by ITN standards, and is untagged. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - It is a close call on both event notability and article quality, but based on the above discussion there appears to be a (weak) consensus that both are within minimum ITN standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[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 on article improvements Definitely going to need some prose to support all those tables. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudgingly support Even as a Brit and a Chelsea fan I see no reason why only the Premier League is on recurring when the German and Spanish teams repeatedly whip our arses in European competitions, have equal support on all the continents and even have bigger crowds. But a recurring is a recurring '''tAD''' (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article updated, no need to wait until the official end, it's not going to change anything. Article needs to be updated to include the fact that Chelsea are champions mind you!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^ Andrew Davidson However much I agree that this is too far for ITN's coverage of sport (a national rather than international competition), opposing it on that basis is moot as this competition is (and again, I oppose how it is) a recurring item on WP:ITN/R'''tAD''' (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew is well known for his "special" and particular perspective on things, nothing to take too seriously! Of course, the result of many hundreds of football matches is not "routine sporting fixture". He knows that, and so do we all, but we should allow him his two seconds of ITN fame. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. There seems to be way too much sport at ITN and it seems to be crowding out more important news. Sport is essentially unimportant because the nature of the fixtures is that someone always wins. Only fans care who wins/loses and they already follow the events closely enough that they don't need us to tell them. Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can change, but this is not the place for such a discussion... Nothing is being "crowded out" - we routinely have stories over 7 days old on Template:ITN. If there are notable stories worth posting that aren't making it on the template, it is due to some combination of not being nominated, no one doing the necessary article work, or failure to convince people the story is important here - not due to sports being posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "only fans care who wins/loses"; that is the case with most nominations of any type of event, that only the people involved care about it. Very little would be posted if worldwide caring of an event was required. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added some text on the league results. Its not the most expansive update ever, but I'd say the article is probably ready. The downside of posted when the championship is clinched is you can't write prose on the scoring and other statistical titles, or on the finishes of the other teams since their places are still to be determined. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, the article is a little table-heavy word-light, but it describes the main story ahead of the season finishing proper. Stephen01:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two policemen and a civilian are killed and three others injured after a grenade attack in Burundi's capital Bujumbura. The attack takes place a day after a similar incident injured three officers, and comes in the midst of intensifying protests against current president Pierre Nkurunziza. (Al Jazeera)
The death toll from the storms has risen to six with five people dead in Queensland and a six year old boy dying after being pulled from rough seas in the New South Wales town of Ballina. (9 News)
April 2015 Nepal earthquake: The death toll from last month's earthquake rises to 7,040 people and a total of 14,025 injured with thousands missing. Authorities in Nepal have given up hope of finding more survivors in the rubble. (Xinhua)(BBC)(CNN)
More than 2400 migrants have been rescued after boats they were travelling on were rescued off the Libyan coast. (Al Jazeera)
Health
New research has suggested lung cancer patients could benefit from the use of statin drugs. Dr. Chris Cardwell, Ph.D., and researchers at Queens University Belfast in Northern Ireland found lung cancer patients who used statins within a year of diagnosis had a reduced risk of death from the disease, the American Association for Cancer Research reported. To make their finding, the research team looked at data on about 14,000 patients who were newly diagnosed with lung cancer between the years of 1998 and 2009 and were a part of the English cancer registry. (HNGN)(AACR)
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.
Nominator's comments: Race won't happen for a few hours, but I wanted to post this now since it is ITNR and it draws attention to the article. CalidumT|C20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending winner/article updates - As long as the article gets in the state that the 2014 race is in, this should be fine. I do recommend stripping the redlinks from the table at the current time, as, barring the winning horse and any special circumstances, the rest are likely unnotable and would never have articles. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, more of the other horses may very likely go on to blue links if they have significant wins as older horses. Depends on the year. (Case in point: Mucho Macho Man, 3rd in 2011 Derby, grew up, won the very major 2013 Breeders' Cup Classic)
In principle, I would say all KY Derby entrant are notable (similar to say the Olympics for humans). Whether someone ever writes the articles is another matter, of course. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, perhaps, but looking back at the past race results, only 4-6 horses of each field actually have articles, and the rest are not linked at all. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is which 4-6, sigh... and having done it the other way around - linking to a dozen articles where the horse is mentioned but without a link - meh, no fun! ;) Montanabw(talk)17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R, and article looks to be in good shape. Quite a bit of excitement over American Pharaoh as a potential Triple Crown contender, but isn't that what they always say? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article quality. People above do not seem to have assessed the article. There's basically no prose in the article aside from the announcement of the win. This article should have at least the amount of "race description" as there is at 2014 Kentucky Derby. If we took out the table, this would be a stub. We can't post this kind of article on the main page. The second after it is fixed, we can post this. But if anyone who actually wants to see this on the main page would actually add some prose describing the race itself, that would speed the process along. I pray that whatever admin posts this actually reads the article and makes a decision based on what will showcase quality material at Wikipedia. As of me writing this now, we don't yet have this. When I awake in the morning, if this should have been posted, I would hope the article would have been fixed. --Jayron3202:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are getting the 2015 Derby article up to speed now. @Jayron32: - we should be able to run it soon and I'm online for a bit longer and can make further tweaks. That said, if the group wants to run the American Pharoah article in the alternative, no objection from me. Montanabw(talk)05:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Ready article is well written and referenced, list of honors does not seem to be a problem. (Before my niece was old enough to talk she imitated Plisetskaya's dancing) μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list should be okay. All but 4-5 are blue links so confirmable on those pages, and there's a general ref ( a who's who book on influential women) which I can see from Google Books preview covers them. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment posted in under one hour, could we just please take some time to allow further comments, not necessarily in this case, but generally? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So What?@The Rambling Man:, in cases with such near unanimous support whats wrong with it? Its better to keep ITN updated then have weeks old articles, especially when there is such support (quite rare that is). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)20:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we generally have a reasonable period of time to allow editors from around the English-speaking world to contribute. After all, this is English language Wikipedia. No harm here, but we should be cautious about doing this kind of lightning quick promotions as they have previously resulted in upset. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the lack of citations and unreferenced quotes? And Jayron, cool your jets, I never said take it off the main page, I just asked why we're now posting in sub-one-hour timeframes. You've obviously got some energy at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you hoping to accomplish with the objection in this section if you don't feel this article doesn't belong on the main page? --Jayron3220:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That you properly check the quality of the items you post, and that you stop posting things within an hour, to allow a rounded view of English speaking editors, to be obtained. Do you need any more information, or is that clear enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Self-evidently, this one article was checked for quality, because even you can't find a reason to pull it. General procedures should be discussed at WT:ITN if you wish to make changes to how things operate here. Even you admit this one article has no reason not to be on the main page, so it must have been sufficiently checked for quality. --Jayron3221:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to embarrass you yet again by asking you to pull your own poor decision. Fix your own issues, and don't make such poor judgements again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, we have a Russian entertainer being commented on at the middle of the day for more Western/English parts of the world (not Russia), so I think the fact there was fair support for that from outside the locale of the RD shows the strength of importance. Additionally, article quality was addressed by at least two !votes (including me), and no I didn't see any lack of citations - there was one quote that ended a para right before leading into a blockquote with a source on that, which is fine. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the version just before her death was added here [7] just to make sure and I only see one quote that is uncited but in that specific case that the immediate source before that sentence supports that and can be easily moved or restated. It is far from a problem. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I think her notability even crosses the line for posting a blurb as she was definitely known and greatly admired outside her field. The article is also in very good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb and no support for blurbs elsewhere other than Kiril. The nomination clearly states it's for RD, and nowhere do I see any indication that four people support a photo, implicitly or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the nominator is only one !vote among all others, so if everyone else suggests a blurb while the nom only wanted an RD, there's no reason not to give a blurb. But I do agree that we've not reached enough consensus to call this support for a blurb yet. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb: I'm on the record as saying death blurbs should be reserved for people whose death directly affects a significant number of people (for example, a head of state or head of government, or an iconic leader a la Mandela or Havel) or is very unusual and unexpected (an astronaut or cosmonaut dying while in space, for example), and my opinion here is no different. Plisetskaya was a very recognizable and influential ballerina, and RD is absolutely deserved and justified, but I don't think it rises to the level of a blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The number of titles on the line here make this more uncommon than other matches, and would be as close to a championship match as we could expect from the sport. Obviously, wait until the match is completed and some discussion of the event is possible and included, but the article's in tentatively good starting shape. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support once finished and updated: Lots of world titles on the line for this fight and close coverage throughout the world. I don't know enough about boxing to know if this was hyperbole, but BBC News said it will be the fight with the most at stake since the Rumble in the Jungle '''tAD''' (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability - This is being called the fight of the century and I don't really think that is hyperbole. It would be an embarrassment if ITN didn't post it, although there was no need to nominate 12 hours ahead of the fight. Obiously the fight will need to take place and the article brought up to quality standards before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the quotes in the article when TRM commented were uncited but I added a bunch of refs so I think I covered everything at this point on that end. SpencerT♦C06:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits(this fight has been talked about for a long time even outside of boxing) but we obviously need to wait until it is over so an adequate update can be made. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if Pacquaio wins, otherwise Oppose giving any further notability to an exponent of domestic violence. No,this is not a joke. If only it were. Black Kite (talk)23:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to announce the winner, and add a blurb with the total made on Pay Per View if it's a world record - which it is expected to be.-- Aronzak (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, a full description of the fight itself (i.e. roughly a round-by-round recap) will be required before we post. I'm pretty busy tomorrow, so hopefully someone can get to it before I have some free time late Sunday. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wow, for such massive interest prior to this fight, even a discussion a few weeks back on if this was worth nominating, not one person who is actually interested in this has bothered to update the article to provide a description of, what I'm led to believe, was an appallingly turgid affair. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And from what I've seen on social media (I didn't watch it) , there was a LOT of commentary about the fight itself (not any pre-match issues), and that should be included before this can be posted. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This a very common phenomenon with most sporting events - people are excited to update the article ahead of the event, but once it happens everyone is burnt out or something. Looks like it will fall to me to update (even though I care zip about boxing), which I will get on in a few hours after I have dinner. Theer certainly are an abundance of available sources to do the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pacquiao was reported to be the people's choice, just like Ali, while Mayweather was bookmakers' favorite. I think that affected the editorial mood. Brandmeistertalk21:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Revenue-wise this was a huge fight, and there was a ridiculously massive menagerie of A-list celebrities in attendance, but I think we'd be well-advised to use discretion here considering that this boxing match has been widely considered a flop-and-a-half.--WaltCip (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is The Ring title important enough to be mentioned? My knowledge of boxing is next to nil, but I've only ever heard of the first three. Also, support. Even if the fight was a dud, I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt because we pretty much never post boxing. Of course it didn't live up to the hype; that was an impossible task. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your query or your support is important. The fight description, as far as I can tell, hasn't been worked on for 36 hours. This isn't going anywhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I support or oppose based on overall importance - article quality can change, while importance isn't fixable. Big picture. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - As promised (only a little late), I have thoroughly updated the article, adding an extensive description of the fight and reaction. I have fixed the copyright and other issues with the pre-existing article as well. Unless there are new, specific quality objections I think we are ready (consensus on notability is clear). I also added an alt, reflecting the $$$$ instead of the titles. Either is fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update looks good and ready to go, for me. The tenses could be fixed as TRM mentioned but that's definitely where having it ITN can get a few more eyes to help out. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's also worth noting we're not a sports ticker so phrases like "showed poise" and "in a late flurry of action that energizes the crowd" and "Pacquiao unsuccessfully attempted to attack with Mayweather mostly looks to avoid his punches" (not English) and "from Pacquiao's big hit" etc etc etc don't belong in an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the tense of "looks" (before seeing this comment) and removed the "poise" bit. Not really sure what you mean by the others. "Big" just means powerful or significant, judgement of which is used by judges to score the round. Do you want the adjective changed? The crowd reaction is not super important, but I'm not sure what harm including it does. Is removing it what you wanted or something else? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue at all with your update, it should read like an encyclopedia and not a sports ticker, that is all. Pretty straightforward. Happy to post as-is because it's causing me a migraine... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boxing will do that, hehe. But in all seriousness, it is a bit hard to know how to improve one's own writing without specific feedback. Thanks for your help... It seems sports updates will usually fall to me, as few competent people like to do them. As such, I welcome comments (at my talk page is probably best) on what people like/don't like about my sports writing. I mean "be encyclopedic" is a valid comment, but I am always trying to be that, so my failures are not apparent to me. From this year: 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game, 2014–15 EuroLeague Women, 2015 Boston Marathon, 2015 London Marathon, 2015 Kentucky Derby and this article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a couple, but yes, your update is WAY good, just not good enough for my spectacles. But don't let that make you think I don't appreciate the fact you deal with these bastard nominations when all the other gobshites around here just bitch. You're one of the few who keeps this place open and alive. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Non-event. The Periscope aspect seems novel but is bigger than this one event. And promoting masculine sports like boxing and football while snubbing baby Princess Charlotte seems to be blatant gender bias contrary to the general weight given to these events by mainstream media. Andrew D. (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Princess is not being "snubbed" because she is female; the fact that she will likely not take the throne led to the consensus that her birth did not merit posting. The hundreds of millions involved in this fight would belie your claim of a "non-event". (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[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 am aware that most will oppose this. But for once, something should be nominated that is actually in the news! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
assume no one minds reducing the moot discussion from four pages to one line?
Neutral: I personally am royalist, but that shouldn't cloud my judgement on Wikipedia. This is obviously something which is all over the news (at least in the UK where I live), but it doesn't match the birth of George as he was a direct heir to the throne. This girl will only ever be the monarch if something tragic happens to George. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since she will in all probability not become queen, this seems too much like consequence-free celebrity news, which I don't think ITN should feature. Thue (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support most definitely in the news, a truly global phenomenon reported throughout the known universe by reliable sources, and of interest to hundreds of millions of people, unlike many of the parochial inconsequential American stories we trot out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly none of whom care. Many of our nations retain ties to the British Crown merely out of a sense of tradition, not because British affairs really matter to us. Resolute23:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we went by this definition of "in the news", all sorts of celebrity baby stories, Beiber, and the Kardashians would become fair game. Just because it's "in the news" doesn't make it ITN-worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To like the royals to Bieber etc is just misleading. Biebers future daughter/son will not stand a chance to become a king or queen of a country. This daughter could potentially become the next Queen of the UK. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, as I said, it's being reported in RS across the globe. Celebrity baby stories, Beiber (who he?) and the Kardashians are not reported globally by RS, just crap outlets. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A royal baby especially in onde of the biggest monarchys in the world is notable. She is fourth in line for the throne and is a possible future queen if (god forbids) something terrible happens in the royal family.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides your slightly bizarre personal opinion, would you be good enough to tell us which parts of the criteria this fails? Reminder, the purpose of ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news, To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events, To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them, To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource." The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"quality Wikipedia content" which this article is certainly not - 5 paragraphs and the second says "drew international media coverage... and criticism that the level of attention was unwarranted" - a clear sign that parts of the media reporting and the article itself are WP:CRUFT.-- Aronzak (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Whose news is it in? Of a global population of 7.2 billion, an estimated 1.2 billion speak English as a first or second language – 17 percent of world population. What proportion would be interested in the British royals? Maybe half? Sca (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready. Unlikely we'll have another royals story until Charles accedes or Harry Marries. Of great interest to the anglosphere, and the essence of what one would want to see in an encyclopedia, and what readers will come here looking for. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and has no place for such dribble as this. If she is crowned for some odd and extraordinary reason, I imagine that might be worth posting. Her mere birth is a nothingness. RGloucester — ☎16:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why I nominated this. I understand people who have your opinion. But if that is consensus, then this category should not be called In the news, but something more neutral such as What is happening. As it stands now, the In the news section hardly features anything that is actually in the news... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's curious that the reliable sources which we don't consider tabloid (e.g. BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc etc) are all reporting this. Yet with our stuffy snobbishness, we deem it gutter trash. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The day we start following other WPs, such as the awful de.wiki, we might as well pack it in here, turn off the lights and go home. Pointless comparison. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even remotely Sca. When it comes down to it, the English ITN is for posting things that are in the news in ENGLISH speaking countries. All you Americans seem to forget that England also speaks English, and this isn't the American wiki (or the German wiki). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)00:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak (and reluctant) Oppose I'm a monarchist but this might be straining things a bit. The new princess is unlikely to succeed to the throne. Do we post the births of non-heirs from other royal houses? That aside I am delighted by the news. May God grant Her Royal Highness and the happy parents many years! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As yours is one of the better reasoned opposes, let me say the premise implies we would not have posted Harry's birth either, which seems a bit odd. I think child of the presumed heir (rather than 4th in line) meets the threshold. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - last year, two babies were born that were in direct line of succession (i.e. next) on birth. We didn't post that. This baby is only 4th in line, which is even less notable. Complete non-story. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this doesn't rise to ITN level, but the failure to post last year's birth of a presumptive future king was a major failure at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The child is fourth in line to the throne in 16 nations and number one headline for most news organisations, and is of huge public interest. Cantab12 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We routinely report deaths, which is rather morbid, and so it provides good balance to report a notable birth too. Currently, the bottom part of ITN has "Recent deaths: Ben E. King" with lots of wasted white space afterwards. For this occasion, we might amend this to "Recent births and deaths: A new princess; Ben E. King", with the princess's name being substituted when it is announced. Andrew D. (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't post for the multitude of other countries' royal families changes to fourth in succession, or even 2nd or 3rd in succession. This has minimal cultural impact, and could be considered tabloid news. Mamyles (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There will be many newsworthy events in this girl's life. I think we should show restraint for now, and maybe post when she strangles her first fox cub or gets into Oxford without any GCSEs. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you must be able to see that FormerIP's comments is disgusting. That's not a personal attack, it's a personal observation. Good try. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if anyone is offended by my vote. I'd give you a shit to make up for it, but unfortunately it seems I couldn't. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever that's supposed to mean, please stop trying to communicate with me because I think I think you are an insufferable twat. Formerip (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we tend to follow reliable sources like the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc etc, all of whom are reporting this news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What are we, the press wing of UKIP? "Pregnant woman has routine birth" is not a "current event of wide interest". Mogism (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we tend to follow reliable sources like the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc etc, all of whom are reporting this news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As above, it's 5 paragraphs and the second says "drew international media coverage... and criticism that the level of attention was unwarranted" - a clear sign that parts of the media reporting and the article itself are WP:CRUFT. Especially the parts about how royalists were given pastries for lining up outside a hospital, and how royalists were happy at how many Twitter followers they got to follow a hospital and the terms they're using to describe themselves on Twitter. Reads like self-congratulatory navel gazing. Many women get acute morning sickness - and they usually don't get a whole paragraph on Wikipedia to describe the announcement. Queen Victoria and Elizabeth I of England do not devote time to the exact location, date and circumstances in which their mothers announced morning sickness - because the articles have actual, notable details to document. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Comparing the coverage of the birth of Queen Victoria's children to this is pure gold. I assume you're joking? Honestly? The morning sickness issue is well documented and serious, if you don't get it, or understand its significance, better that you don't comment on it. Your oppose is worthless, but thanks for demonstrating it better in your responses than I can ever have hoped for. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We posted George because he is directly in line for the throne, this child is not, assuming George has children in the future. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed. We didn't post George "because he is directly in line for the throne", we posted George because there was consensus to do so. You have lost sight of the purpose of ITN. Please re-read the "purpose" section of the ITN criteria page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was the rationale for the consensus. I am well aware of the purpose of ITN and have pointed that out in discussions, as well as my own nominations that have been rejected, in the past with little effect. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being in the news has, rightly or wrongly, has never been sufficient for posting a nomination. A judgement is made by consensus as to importance. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, fair enough, a news item which is reported globally in reliable sources from Australia to Zanzibar is certainly something we should be keeping off the main page. That really underscores the purpose the ITN, don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my views on this matter, see no need to restate them, and I have little interest in debating this with you as I don't think we will agree. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the story meets all four purposes of ITN, yet we have a bunch of opposes, including your own, which mainly lie in the "tabloid oppose" camp, which is naturally completely incorrect since, as noted, this is being reported globally by the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt etc etc. Still, as long as six cops getting charged with murder finally made it (on the third attempt), Team USA are happy here. The sooner we rename this to "American Wikipedia" the better, the more overt, the more honest it will all be. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose posting if Michelle Obama had a child, or perhaps a better comparison would be Jill Biden. Global reporting has never been sufficient for posting; perhaps you forget that we weigh importance and notability. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, those comparisons are 100% bogus. After the next US election, those children would be 100% irrelevant, forever. Right now, this child is 100% relevant to about 2.3 billion subjects, until her death and beyond. But perhaps you forget that. And for your final quote "we weigh importance and notability", yep, the fourth in line to the throne of 2.3 billion subjects. If that's not "important" and "notable", what is? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we draw the line in terms of importance and notability? Fifth in line? Tenth? This child will not always be fourth in line. Please also demonstrate that all 2.3 billion subjects are interested in this news; I don't think republicans in the UK would find it interesting, nor would those in other nations who advocate removing the royal family as head of state. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me making a claim of notability relating to position in line to the throne, it's you and your buddies. I'm just saying this is covered wholesale in most RS across the globe. The anti-Brit brigade are doing their finest here to post a few insignificant cops accused of a murder and objecting to a global phenomenon in this Royal Family birth. Like I said, we need to rename this to American Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia. Your objection to this is insightful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "anti-Brit", I am pro-weighing notability and importance. Please point out where it is written you get a supervote on that point. I have no "buddies" on this issue, but there are others who agree. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing, but I hope you remember the above comment next March. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've finally lost it. Comparing the birth of this princess is in no way comparable to a crappy basketball tournament. What will be remembered in two, five, ten years time? I'm disappointed, but no longer surprised, in your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted my opinion which will be considered by any admins that review this. I decline to further debate this with you. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the tenor of most of the opposes calling this "tabloid" news as it is being covered by the Guardian and the NYT, and "INOLIKEIT" should be kept in mind by admins evaluating when to post this. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the fact that this child is not directly in line for the throne as a reason to oppose is not a "tabloid" argument; it is a weighing of importance and notability. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, the fact is that that it is important and it is notable as noted by all the mainstream reliable sources like the BBC, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, Die Welt, etc etc reporting on it on their main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Consensus was reached to post George because he is directly in the line of succession. This child is not. CalidumT|C20:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we should start posting every royal birth. Prince George was a stronger case, since he was in the direct line of succession. I simply don't think this news meets the significance requirement in the criteria, particularly considering that this princess will probably never be Queen. Neljack (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not a future heir by order of birth, and if she ends up being a future heir through some unfortunate event, that can be posted to ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want people to really think about this. To be on ITN it must satisfy a few criteria, article must be up to date and sources, topic must be making headlines, and the news must be verifiable. So why are people opposing it? Because we should maybe post when she strangles her first fox cub or gets into Oxford without any GCSEs or people couldn't care less (obviously false) or because it is an interesting, noteworthy story (how is this an oppose). Can we please remember what ITN is, this isn't a place to tell us you don't like it, or that its not in the news because she is not first in like to the throne. It is in the news, and it is making headlines, and it is definitely noteworthy. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)00:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's "importance" here. Recognizing that the British Royal Family are treated as celebrities (remember Princess Di), this being their second child is not really a news item but more like celebrity gossip. We definitely want to avoid this type of story appearing at ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maybe wait until she's been named. Widely reported. The UK is the largest European monarchy left and probably the world's best known. She's also --now-- the first female in line for the throne; we need to get more women on the front page, no matter their age. Also, the amount of "I don't like monarchy, so no" votes here are laughable. Prince George's nomination returned the same type of responses. I don't watch/care-for horse racing, but I won't oppose the 2015 Kentucky Derby nomination. In regard to "most people don't care", most of the people featured in "Recent Deaths" are unknown and mean nothing to most people. --Inops (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No offense, but I've never seen Luxembourgian royal babies becoming world headlines. Same for other babies from other non-English regions, like The Netherlands and Spain. Perhaps we can post a royal baby in the Children of Men-universe. But in this universe, I wonder if we can feature news story of a baby from seemingly-infertile royal couple. --George Ho (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our place to question why some stories make it into the news and some don't. If you want to change it, go into journalism and fight for more quality. But as long as stuff like this is in the news, in belongs into WP's ITN. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the nominator, how will you be able to change the majority's minds? By rebutting every person's comments? --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my goal to change anyone's mind. As I mentioned when I nominated it, I was very well aware it would fail. I am actually surprised by the amount of supporters. The reason I nominated it was because I wanted to re-start the discussion over what we consider newsworthy here. And there are some astonishing comments here. The most ridiculous came from Muboshgu, who wrote: Just because it's "in the news" doesn't make it ITN-worthy.WHAT?? Please, if you don't want to post what is in the news then re-name the category!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you ask all the other people who have opposed for the same reason, instead of acting shocked by something that has already been said multiple times? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As she's not directly in line for the throne (i.e she's presumptive, not apparent) & therefore 'barring an unforeseen event' won't ever be queen-regnant. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've met Ol' Charlie boy...twice before I believe. And his estranged and most recently deceased ex-wife once looked into my maternity ward cot and told my mother what a "beautiful baby" I was, some 25 +years ago (proabably at the same time her husband was off humpin'a'frumpin). Yet still, I can't muster the courage to support this, given how much bullshit and nonsensical fanfare this "event" really is, simply. Woman gives birth to a baby. Media hypes it. Move along, move along! --60.255.0.22 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Housewife has second sprog" is not really meritorious news. The first one made a degree of sense, though I still didn't personally consider it that important, because it directly changed the line of succession, and could at least have been argued to have had the kind of impact that, say, the recent Saudi royal shuffle had—although, wait, wasn't that one closed without being posted? Maybe perceived cuteness is a factor here, then. GRAPPLEX14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we close this now? There's obviously no consensus to post (and by my reckoning, there's considerably more opposition than support) and the discussion is starting to, uh, wander. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind closing it. But I think that I achieved what I wanted by nominating it. WP:ITN should really have a general discussion over what they understand by in the news. I am sick of people writing stuff like Woman gets a child. Hardly newsworthy. People here seem to believe ITN is not for displaying WP-articles relating to what is actually in the news, but they think should be in the news, if we lived in a better world. I don't share this approach. I would gladly contribute further to a general discussion on the topic. If we continue to post women's basketball matches who no-one gives a damn about, but then don't post when Hillary Clinton runs for president, then I don't want to be involved here any longer, cause then the name in the news simply has no meaning whats-o-ever... Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[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.
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 on article improvements CBE + other achievements seem right in line with importance. A handful of CN tags and unsourced paragraphs that need to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with updates/improvements. No orange tags, but quite a few unreferenced claims in the article, including some potential BLP violations (the "making up stories" at a newspaper bit, which is fabulism and deeply frowned upon in the business). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, rather good over all, but there are half a dozen [now fixed] potentially controversial unreffed claims, and things like "Many credit her and close friend P. D. James for upgrading the entire genre of whodunit, shaping it more into a whydunit" scare me as possible editorializing or copyvios. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I have verified all the claims attributed to primary sources, deleted one minor unsupported claim and commented out three sentences that sound like editorializing. As of this edit the article has no tags and is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have rechecked per Medeis' comment and it now looks good to go for ITN posting quality expectations. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)
_2015-02-05_04.jpg)
