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).
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, but only if we mark that the games have started, and then do the opening ceremony the next day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting between Syrian rebels and government forces rages around the Aleppo Central Prison in the war-torn city of Aleppo, but it is unclear whether rebels control all or part of the facility. (CNN)
Rescue workers recover eight bodies from a South African gold mine in Doornkop following a fire on Tuesday night. One worker is missing while another eight were rescued. (BBC News)
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: Just announced, a HOF baseball player, so ought to be notable enough for the Recent Deaths line. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib) 20:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Not only was he a Hall of Fame player, but he also was a broadcaster for 53 years, and was still active at age 91. --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems very important to baseball given his stats and lengthy tenure with the Mets as an announcer. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I updated the article, one of the all-time great outfielders and broadcasters. Secretaccount 22:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: News is slow, and this is a fascinating story, and contradicts prior belief that sub-Saharan Africans do not carry Neanderthal DNA. (The Khoisan include people formerly popularly known as the Bushmen and Hottentots.) There is no updated article yet. But, if there is support, I will add the necessary material to the Neanderthal DNA article. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In Google, this only shows up as having been covered as a general news story by the Daily Mail. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm why does it matter if this is only covered as general news in Daily mail? Encyclopedic news that is not widely covered by other media should actually be encouraged on ITN -- Ashish-g55 00:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. The basic purpose of ITN, stated at WP:ITN, is to "reflect recent or current events of wide interest".Formerip (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to steer away from the nomination too much... but i see 4 different points in the "Purpose" section in WP:ITN and none state that it must be of wide interest... it doesn't hurt if its covered widely but that shouldn't be the main reason for supporting/opposing something. I think you might be taking that line a bit too literally -- Ashish-g55 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the very start the page, rather than the purpose section, where it gives a basic one-sentence answer to the question "what is ITN for". If a story isn't of wide interest, it fails the basic definition of an ITN item. Formerip (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have the precedent of posting the Denisovans, and recently a news species of Tapir. The story fits criteria 2 "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events." & 3 "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that we've picked up a bad habit of posting endless random research papers as if they were significant news stories regardless of whether they actually are. But we should stop. Formerip (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm interested in supporting this but I would like to see evidence of even a little more news coverage than has thus far been demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This story just broke, and as a science story it's not exactly a banner headline. If that were a "support if..." rather than a weak oppose I'd be willing to start putting in the work for a good update. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's another way of saying what I was trying to say. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We occasionally post new species too, those are hardly all that widely covered in other media. I think this nomination is similar, it is interesting and certainly encyclopedic. SeraV (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's another piece in the anthropology and DNA puzzle; I don't see this as a scientific breakthrough. According to the article, Eurasian DNA (including neanderthal DNA) was strongest among a subset of Khoisan called "Khoe-Kwadi speakers" who are thought to have arrived in South Africa from East-Africa (Ethiopia or similar). That people in Ethiopia etc. have some Eurasian genes have been documented previously. Mainly this shows that the Khoisan tribe has not lived quite as isolated as previously thought; interesting but more another piece in the puzzle than a breakthrough. I am afraid putting this on the mainpage may mislead people to think this is more revolutionary than it is. Iselilja (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly like a pump-and-dump stock scheme. I hardly think our listing new animals species or an Indian Monorail has misled anyone into thinking those were huge breakthroughs either. In any case, I am curious if there are any supports here, the opposes can take care of themselves. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is currently no article on "Khoisan people". It redirects to "Khoisan languages", which is defined as a "linguistic term of convenience" consisting of three different language families that only share a "click" sound. Researchers actually consider the whole term "linguistically invalid". --hydrox (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no way to disprove that Eurasians, Neanderthals carry Khoisan DNA (or that there was more recent admixture, or that all derive from some earlier source). Note also that the Yoruba live in the Sahel, a hop, skip and jump away from Europe. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This was reported on by many major news agencies today, and he arrived in the Marshall Islands only 5 days ago. --Jinkinsontalk to me 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How genuine is his claim? I've not read too much into the story TBH. Sounds like a trivial ITN story and more DYK material. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 20:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK, it's a perfect candidate for that. --Tone 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK not news. Mostly unsubstantiated claims, and a cute story, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Claims" the problem is the "what he claims" part, and it seems hugely dubious and is being reported that way. The source has a good picture of his fair and fully-fleshed cheeks. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as what he "claims" is not relevant. People "claim" to have seen Yetis, Bigfoots, and Champ too. If there is some way to verify his claims, then maybe, but that seems unlikely. Good DYK suggestion, as stated by others. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Bharat Ratna
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: India's highest civilian award. Awarded after a gap of 5 years. 43 recipients awardees so far in India's 66 years of existence. Regards, theTigerKing 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As much as I'm a Sachin fan, this would be opening the floodgates rather. Every country has a highest civilian award and everyone who is awarded one is probably newsworthy to some degree. GoldenRing (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no indication this is in the news. And at any rate, itll only be a segment of India evenLihaas (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GoldenRing. Neljack (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't mind posting "highest civilian" awards if they receive sufficient coverage, but they have to be in the news to be included in In The News, and we have no evidence of that here. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Third CEO of Microsoft, one of the most known companies on the planet. Making headlines around the world. Regards, theTigerKing 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AFAIK we don't post such appointments in any company, regardless of their caliber (including Apple and the like). This may interest a narrow group of people, who read some kind of Business Herald, but not general public. Brandmeistertalk 15:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Just read the news, considered nominating here, but its not noteworthy of itself. Or perhaps the change of the guard at the once-largest market cap company after years (the first) is more notable. Still though, this is primarily news in India. Not that big in the USA or the world.Lihaas (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No tangible impact on international affairs.--WaltCip (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least this nom isn't drawing comments calling the outgoing head of MS a horrible person. But the development is simply an expected corportae development, and doesn't count as the sort of breaking newsthat will draw reader interest to an article that needs showcasing. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a bit bemused by the oppose rationales here. Is this really of interest only to a narrow group of people, not the general public? I think there will be quite a bit of interest. And of course the appointment of a new CEO (though not necessarily Nadella) was expected, but equally one could say that of the US Presidential elections or the Super Bowl. And since when has a "tangible impact on international affairs" been a requirement? How did the Super Bowl or the discovery of some new species meet this criterion? We even post things that are of largely national impact, whereas Microsoft is a global company that has an impact on the global economy, not just the US one. Finally, we really don't post enough business stories. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis' latter comment. Not seeing a lot of evidence this is widely covered yet either. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Neljack - couldn't have said it better myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Medeis and Neljack both put forth reasonable arguments, and I'm (weakly) siding with Neljack's rationale. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Neljack, major technological news, rate for ITN. Secretaccount 00:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would have maybe been interesting news circa fifteen years ago when "personal computer" was synonymous with Windows 95/XP and MS was the undisputed king of the whole digital revolution. MS has since stagnated against competition and is not even the biggest player in PC anymore, while they seem clueless how to regain the monopoly. --hydrox (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as hydrox alludes to, once upon a time Microsoft was PC, nowadays it's not that big a deal. I don't recall us posting Tim Cook becoming Apple CEO and that really was a big deal when Jobs died. MS has a way to go before it is back in the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBy every conceivable measure, Microsoft Windows continues to dominate the desktop market, and is a major player in the server market. It is the worlds largest software maker, and one of the most valuable companies in the world. The Xbox 360 is one of the best selling consoles of the last decade. Microsoft is easily a household name, regardless of anyone's opinion of their products. The article is in good shape, and the timer is now red for two days. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014 Moscow school shooting. Two people are shot and killed and 29 students are taken hostage at a high school in Moscow, Russia. The suspected shooter, a 15-year-old student at the school, surrenders to authorities. It is one of the first school shootings to occur in Russia. (Reuters)
[Withdrawn] Joan Mondale
Withdrawn by nominator.Lihaas (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Which of the RD criteria are you asserting she meets? 331dot (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to use number two, focusing on her support of arts funding in the country. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am reminded of the strong opposition to Betty Ford, who was a First Lady, who was a breast-cancer advocate, and who shocked people at the time by discussing her mastectomy, and who was known, of course, for co-founding the Betty Ford Clinic. I am not sure where art patron gets you. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reading the article I'm just not seeing what makes her notable even as an art patron (leaving aside being the VPs wife which I also don't think is notable enough) or what she did as such that set her apart from others, or recognition of her activities. Further I doubt an average American on the street could name some cause Dr. Biden supports, let alone a past Second Lady. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, in light of the Betty Ford example, I'm going to pull this nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was posted, now the discussion is turning unproductive. Please, direct your energy to more useful place ;-) --Tone 20:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Note this may be an unusual death (police are involved, he was only 46, so this might have been a crime, but waiting on that). I'm tagging RD on assumption of natural causes, as PSH was an important - but not that important - actor. But if this is a crime, it might make it a blurb. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Academy Award winner, top of his field, unexpected death etc -109.158.173.11 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb shoe-in for RD, may need bump to full blurb if was death by misadventure. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD, people will be looking for this. Abductive (reasoning) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD Clearly meets the requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for blurb. Oscar winner, multiple other awards and nominations. Quite unexpected. Wait for official confirmation of course. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD A blurb might be too much, but it certainly deserves mention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is now reporting it as an apparent drug overdose. I'm going to write a blurb, but I'm still on the RD side of this. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable actor and Academy Award winner. Sounds like a controversial death too. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Acadamy-Award winning actor still in the prime of his career (won a wheelbarrow full of awards for 2012's The Master). Teemu08 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not voting at this point as I'd like the latitude to post it at RD if required, but since autopsy reports don't come out for several days/weeks, we seem to have either (a) an RD or (b) a blurb with "suspected" or "apparent" in it. The latter is undesirable. Perhaps we limit the blurb to "is found dead"... Comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled the alt blurb to remove the supposition. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any appetite to append "Academy Award winning actor..." at the beginning of the alt blurb? Just for context? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the news sources I've seen all done that, I can't see why we can't. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a blurb but Oppose any mention of "apparent" anything until definite facts are known. Adrienne Shelly's death was quickly revealed to be a murder, but not before it was widely reported that she had "apparently" committed suicide. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment happy to post right now at RD, with an option for full blurb should further consensus be gained to do so. A good solution? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RD. I don't think this is significant news enough for a full blurb. Mohamed CJ(talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RD only significant enough for RD certainly but a full blurb he is not. The reason being is that while he may of had a good film career and died relatively young, he wasn't a world-wide iconic film star like Liz Taylor or Charlton Heston who died not long ago. He simply doesn't have the career for a full blurb. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb He may not have been a hugely iconic actor, but he died suddenly, received tons of awards, and was still in his prime. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade to full blurb this guy won the Oscar a few years ago and was still at the peak of his career. Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - I disagree with those saying his career does not merit a full blurb. One of the most talented actors in the business dead under unusual circumstances at a relatively young age. This story will be dominating the news cycle for days. A full blurb with a picture is in order, in my view. Jusdafax 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the career doesn't merit a listing then he shouldn't be at RD either--but the issue here is that the death itself is notable, and for that reason a full blurb is warranted. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what RD has been or was apparently created for. It's either a catchall for people that support for blurbs but don't get strong consensus for such, or for people that editors know are important but a blurb will never fly (eg death by natural causes, like the deaths of Rankin and Seeger of recent). Otherwise, we might as well remove the RD parameter from the template and let the consensus determine if blurb, RD, or not. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. RD was introduced to ensure that worthy postings did not miss out on ITN simply because the blurb would be crap, or because large numbers of people are considered at the top of that particular field (relatively large number of Olympic Golds, Nobel Prizes, Oscars etc). Unusual deaths are the main reason why deaths are still allowed to have full blurbs. The other reason being that very occasionally, someone dies who was truly at the top of their field (Nelson Mandela or Michael Jackson). —WFC— FL wishlist 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phillip Seymour Hoffman died?!? Damn, that's a real bolt from the blue. I was definitely not expecting to see that in the news today... I support a full blurb. Kurtis(talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I do not see any consensus for a blurb. Only about half of those commenting indicated support for a blurb. I am concerned that standards for a blurb are being eroded, undermining the purposes of recent deaths, which have been well explained by WFC. Hoffman was a very fine actor, but this is not the sort of massive global news that would justify a blurb. Nor is there any evidence of foul play. Neljack (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a rough consensus for a blurb to me (you can't take comments that just say "support" one way or another.) I am pretty sure that the death itself being the news was the primary reason given for when a death would get a full blurb when RD was instigated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can see a consensus for blurb above. A massive global news isnt a criteria for blurb anyways... An unexpected death gives it a lot of weight. -- Ashish-g55 02:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the instigators, yes, means of death that are notable in themselves were a reason given for posting a full blurb. The archived discussions are between Spring and August 2012 on the talk page archives. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, deaths should get a blurb where the manner of death is the story rather than the person who has died. However, it is the alt blurb that has been posted, which doesn't mention the manner of death; IMO this should be RD and no more. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a full blurb as a widely regarded important figure in their field, as evidenced by numerous reports describing him as the greatest character actor of his generation. Stephen 02:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason for RD, not for a full blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb. A heavily awarded actor who died at the peak of his career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason for RD, not for a full blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. We generally post unexpected deaths of notable people like this as blurbs; no reason to not do so here. 331dot (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb, support RD. Notable actor, but hardly one of the top ones of his generation, which is what would be required for a full blurb. Exactly the sort of death that RD was created for - so let's use it. Modest Geniustalk 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could be wrong but I have read from others that RD is meant for deaths of notable people where the death itself is not particularly newsworthy- but deaths that are newsworthy can still get blurbs. Hoffman's was top headline news yesterday even while the Super Bowl was on. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's one way of making the distinction. But in this case his life was significant, his death is not. There's no disruption to ongoing events, and there isn't going to be a state funeral or major changes to legislation as a result of it, for example. Modest Geniustalk 15:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's still headline news around the world. His death is significant, he wasn't expected to die at the age of 46. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb, support RD What do you think RD is for? Posting deaths of people no-one has heard of? Deaths get full blurbs when the death itself is what makes it notable; when it's the person who has died that makes it notable then it goes to R|D. As it stands, the blurb just says that he died and doesn't even mention the manner of death ergo it belongs in RD.
post-posting full blurb top of his field for sure. Many hit films and an oscar. Pretty surprised death as well.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"top of his field for sure" is not an argument for a full blurb, that's an argument for RD. If you don't believe me, go read the arguments over any RD nomination; they are all about whether someone was at the top of their field (you know this and I know you know it). The whole of the argument for a full blurb is that an actor died of a drug overdose. Is that really notable in and of itself? This should be pulled and reposted as RD, and clearly no consensus to post full blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose full blurb, support RD. Second WFC's comment above that only truly momentous deaths deserve blurbs - Michael Jackson, Nelson Mandela, and so forth. I read the arguments above for Hoffman's 'unusual circumstances of death' - though, this still takes up space just to say that he, well, died. I thought it was consensus that were the blurb to simply say that someone died at X age would be redundant. Colipon+(Talk) 18:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes someone like Jackson "momentous" and Hoffman not? Both died young (under relatively similar circumstances), both deaths made headlines worldwide, and both have strong evidence of them being among the top of their field. I don't disagree that Jackson was the bigger celebrity, but how would we objectively draw the line? What measures would we use? Teemu08 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colipon, why did you alter GoldenRing's comment to add the phrase ", and clearly no consensus to post full blurb"? ... Again, the actual policy on RDs vs. full blurbs is that blurbs are (primarily) for situiations where the death is the news and RDs are situations when the person's career is the reason for posting. --19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Close Discussion It has been made quite clear that it is the fact of Hoffman's unexpected newsworthy death itself that justifies a blurb. Yet supports like Lihaas' (admittedly abrupt) "Pretty surprised death as well" are drawing irrelevant criticisms about Hoffman's being at the top of his field not justifying a blurb. Then we get the opposite argument that someone like Michael Jackson, who was huge in his field 20 years ago, but long of frail health, and long without a hit or expectation of one, was a momentous death, while Hoffman's, who was at the top of his game, and would normally have been expected to live another 20 years, wasn't. It's time to draw this to a close. There's very strong consensus based on standing policy that this nomination merits a full listing. Further discussion is a distraction that draws more heat than light. I move the thread be closed as settled. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support - as a last nail in the coffin. (no pun intended).--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Nominator's comments: All set for a potential cancelli9ng out event...#1 defence vs. #1 offence...should be a classic.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why nominate it before it's ready? It's ITN/R so you don't need to build any consensus to post it based on anything else besides readiness, and the game doesn't kickoff for seven hours from now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with fire – article is 12-16 hours away from us judging whether it is in a good enough condition to post, and even that assumes that there is no controversy which slows the whole thing down. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you start an ITNR discussion early, an angel dies. --Jayron32 03:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's very rare that sticking the knife in is productive. This is one such time. The game was more of a comedy show than a contest (I blame Lihaas for predicting it would be a classic on an inappropriate forum), the article is not ready 8 hours after the end (I partially blame Lihaas for taking away the carrot of the person actually doing the work nominating, and then not adding a single piece of content after the event has actually started), and even the ITN regulars have held back in their support for this obvious posting (I blame Lihaas for making this such an embarrassing nomination to support).
See y'all in a month or so :) —WFC— FL wishlist 11:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WOw! youve tickeld yourself for blaming while not being productive yourself. Kudos.
At any rate, it was nominated the day of the game itself. But boy was that a boring game!Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said he had to be productive, but he rightly pointed out that you were counterproductive, much as you are with every "X wins a plurality in Y election". People who wanted to update that content updated the content, and they had no particular incentive to nominate it here, since you already did it. Premature noms are not helpful, since there was nothing to evaluate, and the updating wasn't done for at least ten hours after you nominated it, since the game hadn't ended. In the future, you should wait until the update is complete before nominating. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too find the quick (before results are known) nominations to be pointless at best, and counterproductive at times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, I have mentioned before that premature nominations are counterproductive and usually result in them being overlooked or actively argued against. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb even though an angel will die. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "trounced" is adopting a POV. We need to stick to the facts. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, saying, "fortunately trounced" would be POV. Just saying "trounced" reflects the sources, which also say "crushed" and "routed". As for facts, can't get closer than saying 43-8. μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a particular victory qualifies as a "trouncing" is a matter of opinion and thus shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice, though we can of course quote sources describing it as such in the article. Neljack (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the blurb should be simple and not characterize the victory in such a manner(even if reasonably). 331dot (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now given the the the game summary section needs some serious expanding. Likely support once the article is filled out. Canuck89 (chat with me) 06:06, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
Comment: the blurb should avoid a) the scoreline, b) POV words like 'trounce' and c) ENGVAR problems like defeat/defeats. ITNR also suggests including the MVP. I suggest the simple alternative:
We can also use an image of Smith (right). The prose summary now looks fine, but could do with a few citations. Otherwise good to go. Modest Geniustalk 12:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In which version of English would "The Seattle Seahawks defeats the Denver Broncos" be cromulent? This seems like Engvar paranoia. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, because 'Seahawks' is a plural even AmE uses 'defeat'. Apologies - I know this is a frequent issue, so the mere fact that it sounds OK to me doesn't mean it does to other varieties of English. Modest Geniustalk 21:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Improvements are always welcome but the update meets the requirement. Someone upload the picture, please. --Tone 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment current blurb is just fine, no need for the mention or picture of the MVP at all, irrelevant to the rest of the known universe. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Hold the job for 30 years, the longest in the history of the NBA, one of the most pupular sports event in the world. Had the job for almost as many years as all previous commissioners combined. – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We generally don't post retirements of sports figures; a lot of the stuff you mention would make him a good candidate for RD when (in the future) he dies. This is a little different even since his achievements were administrative in nature and not on the court(or in the coach's box) as with the few retirements we have posted (Ferguson, Yao Ming I think). I'm not yet sure if he is up to that level or not. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose No doubt he's significant in some way, but NBA being popular and being in a job for 30 years doesn't come across as a strong argument for this retirement to be included on the front page I'm afraid. If you could elaborate further on why his retirement is so important...please do. What effect would it have on the NBA? American basketball in general? I'm looking for more details from someone who knows more :P. ITN is not an honors column --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possible. I'll strongly oppose anything that will make Lakers fans happy, The Veto be damned (LOL). Seriously, the NBA isn't changing that much during the transition; the effects will be seen later once Adam Silver starts making some hard decisions. But the difference between's Stern's last day and Silver's first day on the job is nil. –HTD 16:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big news within the NBA, but not a significant development outside of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Business personnel changes aren't posted, and unless an argument is presented, the NBA is no exception. SpencerT♦C 20:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horrible guy, but it's not that significant. YEPacificHurricane 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is accused by the Australian government of being unpatriotic
No consensus to post. --Tone 16:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The ABC is a national public broadcaster, and being "unpatriotic" is a serious accusation that is bound to have an impact on media outlets across the country --A1candidate (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Politicians criticise things all the time; if ABC were shut down on those ground, then I would consider a support. SpencerT♦C 22:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Prime Minister criticising an independent national broadcaster for not reporting on the government as he would like it to is hardly earth-shattering news; if he acutally did something about it - e.g. turning it into a government propaganda mouthpiece - that would be a different matter. Neljack (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No different than President Obama or any liberal politician criticizing Fox News or conservative politicians criticizing MSNBC or CNN. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This happens early in the term of every Australian Coalition government. The PM on this occasion was speaking on a red neck shock jock's radio show. It was clearly intended as vote attracting fodder for that bigot's equally bigoted radio audience. Very little will happen beyond the usual shallow public "debate". Nobody will change their minds. The National Party part of the Australian Coalition always opposes major changes to the ABC anyway because it's the only media organisation that provides a decent service in rural areas, where that party's voter base lives. Storm in a teacup. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Australia has bigger political stories happening every week. --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Politicians complain about the media..." How, exactly, is this different from every single day since the beginning of recorded time? --Jayron32 23:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's different because the government owns this broadcaster, and theoretically has the power to close it down. But it won't. (If it ever does, It will definitely deserve to be posted here!) HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, if the government did close it down, that would be noteworthy(and I would support that) but we aren't there yet. 331dot (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating 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: Schell won the Academy Award for Best Actor in 1961. Won a Golden Globe in the 1990's and was also directed an Oscar nominated documentary. --Miyagawa (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support am a fan, but am not sure Topkapi and Disney's The Black Hole earn him a place, when most people nowadays will never have heard of him. That he died of pneumonia is not a sufficient update. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A Best Actor Oscar winner with a good career seems suitable for RD. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Medeis. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In a long career he played a large range of roles in film, TV and theatre (he was an acclaimed Hamlet). He won many awards and was regarded as one of the greatest actors in the German-speaking world. He was clearly a man of many talents: he was also a distinguished concert pianist who performed with famous conductors such as Leonard Bernstein and Claudio Abbado (whom, sadly, we have also recently farewelled). Neljack (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article needs a proper lead, but otherwise looks good quality wise. A big better update on death/legacy would be nice, but not necessarily required for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITN policy holds that an update that says no more than what's in the blurb (here, that he died) is insufficient. Let's get an actual update, please. Perhaps someone will have commented on his passing? μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but last time I suggested as much I was basically told that wasn't the case for RDs anymore. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for an article with a proper lead. Schell will long be remembered for his "bravura performance" in Judgment at Nuremberg, which made him famous in the English-speaking world. Sca (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Also to note that User:Light show expanded the lead earlier. Miyagawa (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support won the top award in his industry, update is perfectly adequate per current the current guideline (to whit: "In addition, the article must have a prose update about the person's death" no comments regarding the length of the update), marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's post it already... Sca (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly do so, but have been chastised several times in the past for doing so, because I dared offer an opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RDStephen 22:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Londoners have been waiting in vain for 200 years to hold another frost fair
Pardon the pun, but snow close. SpencerT♦C 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose article is in really poor shape, and there's nothing to suggest that the Thames won't freeze tomorrow. Local story of trivial interest. No mention in the article or the source that this "record" is constrained to January. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is essentially a story about something that hasn't happened. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 15:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — ZZZZzzzzz. Sca (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oh those poor Londoners. Perhaps they should think of all the cool stuff they have today instead? Somchai Sun (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a joke here I'm not getting? Formerip (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase the BBC, London has not been short of Christmas markets, circus's or illegal raves in the 200 years since... —WFC— FL wishlist 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: India's first monorail is inaugurated on Saturday, and becomes open to the public on Sunday. This is a momentous occasion for public transport of India and shows further proof of the country's modernization and growing economic prowess. --Tocino (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until article is updated. The lead is a mixture of tenses, needs updating. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the tenses in the lead. --Tocino 14:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the "Capacity and frequency" section needs work too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until article is updated. I agree with TRM here.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up Doing..., you may help. Tito☸Dutta 19:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC) @The Rambling Man and BabbaQ:, I have made some more changes and added some details on the inauguration (considering it'll be the blurb, please add "first monorail in India"). It is already 1:35 am here, I need to sleep and I am unsure if I can vote after making edits in the article, but it is a significant event in India, and I support featuring it on the main page. Tito☸Dutta 20:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should "India's first" go in the blurb? That way its clear why its in ITN. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Added some details with a source. --Tito☸Dutta 20:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Due to recent improvement measures. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as the article is now updated. Stephen 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So? What basis to post? There are 2 opposes and 1 support...even without the opposes this is not enough. PULL!Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both opposes were "...until the article is updated". Since it IS updated, they are no longer opposes. I'd think that was pretty obvious. And for what it's worth, I'll lend a post-posting support for a fairly interesting "first". OrganicsLRO 12:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okey fine, but still there was then 1 support and its not ITNR.
I too will oppose as its not a famous first in the world, merely focus on stateLihaas (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Pull Request The words 'first' and 'monorail' does not lead to qualification of this article in ITN. India is spending 90 billion USD to set up cities between Mumbai and Delhi. India is already having Metro trains running in suburbs.Regards, theTigerKing 14:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppose until updated" could potentially be read as "support after update", so I see where the decision to post came from. I may not have read the dicussion the same way, but it is certainly a reasonable reading... As to the merits of the story, I support posting. This is a significant milestone in transportation in the world's second most populous country and "famous first in the world" isn't an ITN requirement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2014 (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: Well known in his field; however, the article needs to be updated about information on his death. Jón - (Talk) 10:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose based on article quality. A manager who has led a team to a Euro championship is close to top of his field (given that only a handful of coaches have ever done this), but the article is weak, particularly with regard to his time as Spain coach, 1/3 not mentioning him, 1/3 discussing an alleged superstitious nature, and 1/3 dedicated to the Euro victory. All unreferenced. Could use expanding and whole sections such as Playing career and Statistics need serious work on the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject being posted to RD, strongly oppose article going up in its current form. The lead is just about the only redeeming feature. Putting aside my views on the level of coverage given to the race row, the body pretty much entirely skips the 30 years of his career which led to the Spain appointment. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of work has been done through the day to better balance the coverage of his career. A bit of sourcing of the newly-added content (and the extraordinary, but accurate, remark about the British media demanding his dismissal at the time), and I could live with the article being posted. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the quality of the article is improved. Aragones is an important enough figure within the football world to be posted at RD, but not with the current quality of the article. Mentoz (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported unless a better update and a stronger rationale are given. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for his significance is that he took over the international footballing equivalent of the Chicago Cubs, and developed the core of the side which is widely considered to be the greatest European team there has ever been. I suspect you won't agree with the rationale, but you asked for it to be spelled out. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do find that helpful. I am just leery of posting coaches and players below the almost-legendary level, or given the amount of sports world-wide we will just be a sports ticker. Does greatest team ever mean greatest for one year, or greatest for a string of years? μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a string of years. Without wanting to slip into the realm of media hyperbolae, if Spain were to win the World Cup this year, pretty much every neutral in the sport would consider them to be the greatest international team of all time. For balance it's worth pointing out that while Aragones built the core of today's team, giving several their international debuts and playing many of them in the 2008 final, Vicente del Bosque has now been at the helm for six years, has maintained an unprecedented level of success, and is the one who will go down in history as the manager of that great side. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the man who started off Spain's era of extraordinary success (and introduced their short passing style of play) qualifies as a very important figure in his field. The article is in reasonable shape, though the sections on his career before becoming manager of Spain could do with some citations. Neljack (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if someone takes care of the last couple [citation needed] tags and adds another ref or two to the playing days section, I'd be willing to post this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attention needed this is nicely updated, and although I don't really support most sports noms, it would be a shame for this to go unposted because of a few CN tags. I am clueless about soccer, so it would be nice if someone else could address the minor outstanding issue. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen soldiers are killed and four wounded by suspected al Qaeda militants in an attack on an army checkpoint in southeastern Yemen. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
For the first time in its 54-year history the State Water Project announces a zero water allocation for the state of California providing no water to urban residents or farmers this year amid a record setting drought. (LA Times)(Mercury News)
Article needs updating 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: Hungarian director. Nominated for Best Director five times at Cannes Film Festival, winning once. He also received a lifetime achievement award from Cannes and a Hungarian national honor. --Teemu08 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Skimming the article, he seems to be very important in Hungarian cinema. Would be a good thing to have an RD listing from an atypical nation. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems significant enough. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could support based on notability, but must oppose based on article quality. Its looks like roughly half the article is unreferenced and most of the rest relies on a single source (which creates neutrality issues). If referencing is improved, consider me a supporter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose on notability/quality. The Red Psalm and The Red and The White (two Soviet-sanctioned propaganda works) are the only films of his that aren't single-sentence lead stubs with a cast list appended. If his works merit posting on their own standing we should have some articles on them. That's entirely possible, but it's not evidenced. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality alone, masses of unreferenced text. Certainly notable enough for those two golden words in the RD section of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (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: A key player in animation of the mid-late 20th century ( half of Rankin / Bass, the people that created stop-motion animation like Rudoulph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, as well as other animation (The Hobbit, etc.) Obviously left to RD only, no blurb suggested. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hugely influential. His article is barely a stub though, and is certainly not updated. I think we can look more to Rankin/Bass Productions for proof of notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I agree with Medeis that the article could use expansion. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Medeis. Jón - (Talk) 00:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a few things from the Royal Gazette article. We've run into this problem with duos before that the main article focuses on the the notable work and the individual articles are stubs. I don't think that should be an impediment to posting here. Note also that he died where he had resided in Bermuda for decades, and the news seems to be slow hitting London and New York. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded and updated. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hugely influential animator. --Jayron32 02:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready per that support. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am personally unfamiliar with his work but it appears he was quite important in his field. Jusdafax 04:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very light on references, including an unreferenced section. Stephen 06:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have aded a few more references to that section. Virtually every fact in that article can be verified to the Royal Gazette obituary if necessary, but I didn't see the point in overkill.. That he produce or wrote a show (which is properly identified by a link) does not need further citation in proof, since the credits of the primary source do that. If there's anything else that needs verifying it should be tagged. Otherwise this is ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose large back-catalogue of animations, and just about squeezed an award in 1977 (which wasn't even mentioned on his page until I added it), but I'm not seeing any real widespread news coverage of this, and the "career" section of the article is in need of expansion and referencing. There's little to suggest his career was much more than "quantity over quality", no major awards for any of his work outside the Peabody for The Hobbit, not considered influential in the same way many others are/were. I tidied a lot of it up, but don't have time to go seeking refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added more references, hid one claim that seems likely but was unverifiable. Marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Sister of Berry Gordy, wife of Marvin Gaye, important musician and songwriter in Motown of her own right as well. Update is pretty minimal, and I may get on that if I have some time, though of course anyone else is invited to help as well. --Jayron32 02:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reading the article as it is now, other than being Gaye's wife I don't see how she is very important in her field. I don't see what honors or recognition she has gotten or other ways to indicate her importance to music. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've had a run through the article, fixing the most obvious issues, but per 331dot, it appears most of her notability was conferred on her by marrying Gaye. No major awards, not top of her field, not seeing how she meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
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)
