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).
Officials call off rescue operations as 54 dead bodies recovered with an unknown number of people missing in a ferry disaster in the Meghna River of Bangladesh.(Biharprabha News)
Law and crime
A pregnant Sudanese woman Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag is set to receive 100 lashes for being married to a Christian man and is sentenced to death for refusing to renounce her Christianity causing international outrage. (CNN)
Support A fatal crash killing multiple currently serving government members is important enough for me. CaptRik (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the BBC has just reported this and seems very reluctant to go into too many details. If, as suspected, there are fatalities of members of the Laos government, and assuming we can expand the article a bit more, then this is certainly ITN material. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the article can be developed gradually. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has to be a minimum standard before it's posted. Currently it's not there yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately, but until we have a clear idea of the casualties/deaths, we should refrain from posting, just reading the article makes it blindingly obvious that there's no real idea what's going on. Yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every single number I got was different somewhere else. 6:15 or 6:30. 14 or 20. No-one seems to know yet. Thanks, Matty.007 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Clearly a significant event. I will create the article if others agree it is notable enough have created the article so this process can work normally. --Jinkinsontalk to me 00:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I will create the article if others agree it is notable enough. It's hard to agree if something is notable enough when there isn't an article to look at. That seems counter-intuitive to the way the ITN nomination process works. SpencerT♦C 01:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, alright, but I don't like people telling me I shouldn't keep creating articles on random shit because it might not be notable, so I guess this is a lose-lose situation (or maybe I'm just in the wrong place). Thus I will create the article immediately. Jinkinsontalk to me 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: These are the worst floods in more than a 100 years affecting countries with more than 10 million people, with thousands already being displaced and a number of people killed; and, they are likely to affect more countries downstream. --Nikola (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is well covered in the news, but the death toll looks minor and the article needs a lot of work. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the article with the already existing one that I have not noticed and changed the nomination. Nikola (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose not well covered in the news I read, and no real notability for ITN I can determine. Having said that, we regularly see fires and tornado outbreaks in the US on the main page, and those are always expected, while this is not usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we should always rely on the death toll as the only decisive criterion for posting. The floods caused major damages in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, emergency was declared in both countries, thousands of people were evacuated from their homes, many European countries have already reacted by sending aid to the affected region, and the prevalence of the story in the news has been rapidly escalating from the very beginning. Combining all these information is definitely sufficient for posting. I'd also like to propose an alternative blurb that more precisely reflects all the things going on.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with tighter blurb. 8 deaths is unusual/high for this type of disaster in this part of the world. Besides, this affects the entire economies of two countries. I think saying Major floods affect Southeastern Europe is sufficient. Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating 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.
Nominator's comments: As per early rounds of counting NDA leads in the election. Will get clear results in few hours. --Gfosankar (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have struck out the blurb for now for obvious reasons. Until we have the final result, editors please comment on the lead article and such. @Gfosanker: Don't mind, but I suppose we will be posting the blurb only after final result is settled. We won't be keeping any live scores on who is leading and who is not; only who won. Isn't that right everyone? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLet's wait for the election results to come in. May be we can also mention the PM candidate in the blurb itself (depending on the performance). Should we mention the fact that they were the largest ever democratically elected governmental elections in history of the world in the blurb? [My personal opinion] Regards, theTigerKing 04:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
obvious support as ITNR...and you stole my nom ;( JAI MATA DI! Amethi is key and that chootad is getting jhapped!
Comment - Yes, await the result. We may need to modify the blurb thereafter. As, the election results might establish new records and update historical parameters in number of ways after a significant period of time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BJP on its own could also get a majority, which news channels are saying has not happened in last 3 decades (single party getting majority). Maybe the blurb could be modified accordingly. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support when the results are out. With 800+ million voters, this was the largest election in history in a world power and will very likely have a strong impact locally, regionally and globally. What more needs to be added? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course, in principle, but as the maintenance tag at the top of the article clearly states, it needs a really thorough copyedit before it could be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Narendra Modi should be mentioned in the blurb since the whole campaign was centered around him. Once the results are announced, the blurb can be modified if BJP wins a clear majority. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait it's the results that are ITN/R, and, as of one minute ago, only 28 of 543 seats have been announced. The initial counts show a very clear outcome, but we should wait until the results are certified. Results are here for anyone interested - I'll be keeping an eye on it throughout the day. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support All the Counting is over, the NDA won a majority, the BJP has won a majority on its own. This should be on the main page immediately. Zince34' 10:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a source for that, please? The results I'm seeing still say that there are only ~130 seats out of 543 that have been counted fully. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although various news websites are showing different numbers, and that's very likely to happen as their updates are possibly done at different times, I would suggest to wait till we post it ahead. Btw, I don't know where you are getting your ~130 score from and at what time, this official website http://eciresults.nic.in/ is a good one. But it is kinda slow than other news sites and they update it with all chunks of information unlike the news one who only tell you who won and not with all stats. As of 6:34 PM IST, 220 of 543 seats have a definite winners announced. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the duplicate nomination and left a friendly note at the user's talk page explaining. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks likely at this stage that the BJP will have an outright majority, without need for the NDA coalition. Should we have a BJP majority or an NDA majority in the blurb? GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to propose that. In my opinion, I'd rather have the blurb say "BJP majority" instead, but I think it is necessary to mention Narendra Modi. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Mentioning Modi, with image is important. 2. Lets not rush to delete NDA's name altogether. BJP could easily form the government on their own now; but might very well share important posts with ministers of the coalition parties. So don't guess and write BJP alone. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing government formation with gaining a 1/2 majority. If the BJP does get such a majority, it won't be wrong to write so. Actual government formation may take place even later. MikeLynch (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of ITN is its freshness. So its better to put it now, whatever is the fact. Remember that the main page is editable and we do rephrase blurbs many times about ongoing events. If you all wanna wait then lets wait till 2019 when they would have definitely completed their tenure. The blurb doesn’t have to do anything with who is becoming PM with whose support or such. It has to do with what exactly is happening. ITN has been criticized plenty times for posting stale stuff and we can do nothing about it as our criteria for featuring articles on main page are quite stringent. In such cases, if articles are satisfactory, waiting and postponing for blurb phrasing is kinda stupid. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. As of now, no single party has a majority. Since it looks like the BJP will get a majority of its own, it might be wise to wait till all the results come in and post that the BJP itself has gained a majority, instead of the NDA. Or if you folks have a bit more patience, we might want to wait till the government is actually formed. In any case, Mr. Modi's name should feature. MikeLynch (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The PM of UK has officially called on Modi. I believe we can go head with the word projected. [1]. Here is the actual results link. BJP now has 241 in its kitty and require 272 for absolute majority. [2]
Wait for a couple of hours and you can post the real deal. No speculations on the main page please. MikeLynch (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Support We can go with the current blurb, though it looks like BJP will have a clear majority, there is no harm in mentioning NDA. We can have a photo of Modi and nominate another ITN when he becomes the PM. AmartyabagTALK2ME 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ADMINS - PLEASE BAN LIHAAS FOR THE DEROGATORY WORDS HE HAS USED (IN HINDI LANGUAGE) IN HIS COMMENT ON THIS NOMINATION115.118.20.224 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boss! Go and check results. Congress has no say even in India and Wikipedia is American. Hehehe.... (Jokes apart, please have guts to login and comment.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
POST IT NOW The BJP has officially won 272 seats in the Lok Sabha elections paving the way for Narendra Modi, to be the next PM of India. Please use the word 'led' instead of 'ápostrophe and s'. Also, the word majority should be replaced with simple majority for the ambiguous interpretation. Though he has been congratulated by the PMs of UK, Australia, Israel, Pakistan, Sri Lanka...it would be interesting to see how Obama makes the first move. Modi has been denied the US Visa as per the 1998 US act. Super-interesting to be least. Here is the official link for checking the results online. [3] Blurb needs to readjusted if a coalition forms the government at the centre.. Regards, theTigerKing 17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Support we should post it now and can modify it later if necessary. Not everyday that a Chaiwala gets elected as head of state in this fashion--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General note the supports from all are very encouraging and thanks to you all for your contributions. HOWEVER, the article we post must be the election article, and right now it's in a poor state. Instead of spending hours here clamouring support to post the result, please spend some time fixing the article. Whether we post it now or in six hours, it makes little difference, let's get the article quality up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What TRM said. There is no doubt this is an important story. There is also no doubt it won't be posted with the election article in poor condition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks better now, with numbers in and some comments added. While there is still room for improvement, it is ok to post. Posting. I'll go with the second blurb as it allows to add the photo. --Tone 09:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replace image Please replace the image of Conchita Wurst with Narendra Modi's. No offence, but the image by the side of the text is looking too odd. AmartyabagTALK2ME 10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST SUPPORT : Just POST it now with the image. it's been too long I am waiting. The article is upto date with results. -Khushank94 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb can be : The Indian general election results in landslide victory for the BJP leader Narendra Modi(pictured) in world's largest electoral exercise ever.
A car bomb explodes near the Turkish border, killing at least 29 people and wounding dozens of others. (CNN)
Two Palestinians are reportedly killed by Israeli soldiers at demonstrations near a prison where Palestinian militants are held, the Palestinians were throwing stones and waving flags. (Reuters)(The Times of Israel)
Several demonstrations, some of them violent, take place in Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, Bursa, Antalya and Diyarbakir in response to the disaster, with police responding to many of the protests with force. (BBC News)
The official death toll for the disaster rises to 282, with up to 150 miners still missing. (BBC News)
An oil pipe in Los Angeles breaks, spilling an estimated 10,000 gallons of oil in the streets. (BBC News)
Fifteen crew members of the MV Sewol are charged over the sinking of the MV Sewol off the coast of South Korea with four people including the captain charged with homicide. (AP via New Zealand Herald)
An eight month pregnant Christian woman, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, is sentenced to death by hanging for apostasy in Sudan in a case that has drawn widespread international condemnation. (NBC News)
Nominator's comments: I started the article but it is a very short stub. I will try and update it more if I get the chance but if anyone else is willing to update it please do. Andise1 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like we need more news on this, and it certainly looks like it happened yesterday, so this nomination is in the incorrect location. As a two-sentence stub, the article is nowhere close to being main page quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to correct day. SpencerT♦C 00:18, 17 May 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: Long-term prime-minister of a key European country (Belgium) with a career in influential positions outside politics in business and in UEFA too. He was once considered as candidate for the President of the European Commission. After his retirment, he remained fairly prominent and played a big role in attempting to resolve the recent political crisis in Belgium. It's also worth noting that a constant 7-year term as a Prime Minister in Belgium is virtually unparalleled! --Brigade Piron (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; meets DC2 as a head of government. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support what 331dot said sounds good. DC2. I don't know what it means but I'm sure it has something to do with him being an important figure. Belle (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should probably have linked to the death criteria, of which the second one is "very important figure in his or her field". 331dot (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DC sounds nicer than death criteria though. [Shiver]. I'm hoping to avoid the death criteria for quite some time. Belle (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is almost completely unreferenced and has a poor lead. These issues will need fixed before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is now much improved. The referencing, however, still is pretty weak. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing is much better now, and about as good as it ever will be!Brigade Piron (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This should be sorted now. But if you believe the referencing is particularly bad on this one, I'd invite you to look at other similar biographies...Brigade Piron (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that there are other articles with poor referencing too. They shouldn't feature on the main page either. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are still large areas of text without references at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support His important involvement in constitutional reform at both the Belgian and the European level means that he meets DC#1 for a significant impact on both the country of Belgium and the region of Europe. The article will clearly need more work, though. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly meets RD2 and I think the referencing is now good enough to go. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Referencing now in good shape. SpencerT♦C 00:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least three people are killed and 15 injured as a result of violent clashes between two religious communities in the Indian city of Hyderabad. (Biharprabha News)
Turkey's Energy Minister Taner Yıldız raises the death toll from the disaster to at least 274, with 120 people still trapped in the mine and 80 miners injured, four seriously. (AP)
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:10, 17 May 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. Change in the editorship of one newspaper is not significant, even if it is the New York Times. We don't usually post changes in corporation/company boards or other personnel. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there a back story here? The merely replacing of an editor seems like very small potatoes, so if there is something more you better explain what it is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is big news when they change editors at the big newspapers/magazines, and usually means there has been some sort of disagreement. But this cannot rise to level of ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the reason for the change is significant enough to warrant a paragraph at minimum in at least one relevant article. At the minute there is barely a sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thryduulf. Not to be a sensationalist, but there needs to be more to the story to make this ITN-worthy. AgneCheese/Wine 23:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. fired her, possibly because she "confronted the top brass" (more info here). Just thought I should mention this in case it makes this remotely ITN-worthy. Jinkinsontalk to me 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apparently, according, [2] to the storied Ken Auletta, she was fired for being "pushy" (as the first woman editor of the Times to be replaced by its first black editor) for questioning why she made nowhere near as much as the white man she had replaced. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "overpaid" person is removed from their position and replaced with another overpaid person. First overpaid person will walk into another overpaid position elsewhere. Not news. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently she was underpaid.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm reading she quit due to the pay disparity. As a woman, she was being paid less than her predecessor, who was a man. If there's legs to that, I could reconsider, but as it's as gossipy as Jay Z vs. Solange at this point, I opppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Who cares if she steps down? The name of her successor on the position has been already revealed and the change will not likely exert severe problems in publishing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 15 May 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] UEFA Europa League
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:14, 15 May 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: Might not be as significant as the Champions League but it is a major annual event in football (soccer) between two major European clubs. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the nom that this is not quite in the same league (pardon the pun) as the Champions League final. Plus we will have the 2014 FIFA World Cup starting soon and will probably encounter quite a few ITN-worthy soccer blurbs being nominated. AgneCheese/Wine 23:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a consolation prize--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a competition for teams who aren't good enough to get into/progress in the Champions League. That's just not significant enough. If you want a football story on ITN, I suggest working on the 2013–14 Premier League nomination below. The Champions League will of course be posted once that happens (and the article is updated...) Modest Geniustalk 03:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity one of the most viewed articles in this Wikipedia won't get an ITN appearance. This has tons more page views than the likes of the Heineken Cup, which is almost certainly to be posted... wait, there's no Irish team in the final, so there's a chance no one's gonna update that... –HTD 13:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soccer is already plenty well represented here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a consolation tournament. The winner of this is effectively gets the the 77th place trophy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.222 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 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 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: Not completely sure about this one, but his death has just been announced and it's worth a discussion at least. I don't think he would meet the RD criteria, unless charity fundraising while terminally ill is a 'field' so this is probably a blurb or nothing. His health progress has been heavily featured in the British media of late and so I have no doubt that his death will generate more coverage. --Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While clearly notable enough for an article, I'm not sure this matter rises to the level of a blurb, so I must reluctantly oppose a blurb but (see below). 331dot (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I think it's fair to say that Sutton was at the top of the field of individual charity fundraising overall, rather than just among people in his situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced he was significant enough. "Individual charity fundraising" seems like an artificially narrow field to me. Neljack (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to make of this one. On the one hand, I think it's pretty clear he doesn't meet the RD criteria. On the other hand, the subject is clearly encyclopedic and this is very much in the news at present, at least in the UK. I would lean towards support RD as an exception to the rules, but it's not a strong lean. GoldenRing (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. He does meet the criteria. I don't see what wider field could be proposed than "individual charity fundraising" (after all, groups are not going to qualify for RD anyway). Formerip (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for RD, certainly it'd be unusual to find a single individual responsible for the collection of three million pounds in a matter of a week or so, he has also featured heavily in UK news outlets for the past few weeks. The article needs some help, too much reliance on Twitter and the charity website, there should be plenty of third-party sources available to update it satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is synthesis. Neither the fundraising nor the being ill is grounds on its own for posting. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support for RD does not meet the RD criteria, per TRM. If a full blurb was suggeted I would oppose based on this not really being front-page material. Somchai Sun (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing TRM's comment, I do support for RD per DC1. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD - He has been a contributing force to get this fundraiser to the high amount. He has recieved international coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD His death has been front page news outside the UK. He definitely made a "significant impact on the country" in the recent past. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD significant impact. `--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD - his campaign (for want of a better word) has been massive news in the UK and, as shown above, has received international coverage too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD, support blurb. - Subject is known primarily (or exclusively really) for the time period\events that led up to this death and the fight against the cancer that caused it. To me, this is a textbook case where the death (broadly understood) is the story, not the life of the person. (He was famous for less than a month, if I understand correctly.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And he meets RD criterion 1, or, if you disagree, please demonstrate how. Somewhat bizarre now that we have two ITN regulars, one saying "yes to RD, no to blurb" and one saying "no to RD, yes to blurb". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he had died 5 years from now, it would have barely been noticed. If he raised a lot of funds but wasn't terminimally ill, it would have barely been noticed. (I am quite sure many people raise multiple million pounds for charity each year.) I'm not saying he didn't have a wide impact, I'm saying he had a wide impact because of his then-impending death. Thus, to me, the death is the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well either he does or he doesn't meet the criterion, which is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He had a wide impact because of his (then-impending) death. It isn't an "either/or" situation, but rather a "meets because" situation. That suggests a full blurb is best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but what kind of argument is that ThaddeusB, "if he had died 5 years from, it would barely be noticed" do you own a crystal ball? It is a non argument as he died today, at best speculation.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my point is that he is notable because of his illness and resulting death, not the fund raising itself. Many many people raise that kind of funds - Sutton had a special impact because of his plight, a plight that cannot be separated from his death. That suggests a full blurb is the best option to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: you are misunderstanding ThaddeusB's point. Just because someone is eligible for RD does not mean they cannot have a blurb if that is justified - for example Margaret Thatcher got a full blurb even though she also met the RD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, but support RD I can see ThaddeusB's point and it is a heart wrenching/heart warming story. But, to me at least, the "I'm dying so let me leave a lasting legacy by raising millions of pounds for charity" angle is more DYK-worthy than ITN-relevant. That said, the kid was certainly 100x the person that most of us could ever aspire to be and clearly meets the RD criteria. AgneCheese/Wine 23:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb mostly - though used widely in the news reports "dies after raising £3m for charity" sounds odd because it has some hint of implicit causation similar to "dies after a high-speed crash". Belle (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Valery Bolotov, a leader of the separatist movement in the eastern city of Luhansk, is wounded in an assassination attempt by an unknown assailant. (CNN)
The body of 26-year-old French photojournalist Camille Lepage was found in the Bouar region. The French presidency released a statement saying she was "murdered" and announced that a team of investigators will be dispatched to the scene. (Time)(The Guardian)
Thousands of Vietnamese workers stage anti-China protests in front of factories with Chinese names over Beijing's decision to locate an oil rig in waters of the South China Sea also claimed by Hanoi. (Voice of America
Nominator's comments: I'm less confident this is the most notable aspect of the fires than I am that the fires are themselves ITN-worthy. --Jinkinsontalk to me 18:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for further developments; wildfires are not an unusual occurrence in California or the Western US in general, especially in recent years. Has there been large scale evacuations, significant casualties, a dollar amount put on property damage? Something like that would be better to hang our hat on, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Carlsbad alone issued 23,000 evacuation notices." [3] That large-scale enough for you? Jinkinsontalk to me 18:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a state of 38 million, not really, to be honest. As I said, these sort of fires are not an unusual occurrence. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing abnormal, and certainly nothing special from the perspective of news for English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, this isn't really that uncommon, Wildfires in the western US happen every year, and often come very close to urban areas. When I lived in Nevada I considered California's two largest exports to be bad drivers and smoke. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question (And this is a serious question, since I'm not very experienced with ITN as many of you know) What did the tornadoes last month have that these fires don't? Jinkinsontalk to me 22:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tornadoes are unpredictable as to where they occur and how much damage they cause. California and the West have fires on a regular basis(just see the See Also links in the fires article). The tornadoes caused $1 billion in damage; we don't yet have a dollar figure for these fires, I think. We also have limited casualties as of right now. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. per 331dot and my own previous vote regarding the tornadoes. The story needs more development before we post. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I think the nomination should be dated the 13th since that's when her body was found(though we don't know what day she died). 331dot (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note ii: Is this an RD nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for the opinion of other editors as to whether it should be an RD nomination or a full blurb. In my opinion, an RD won't reflect the conflict in which she was killed, but in the same time I feel some editors will think it isn't notable enough for a blurb. What do you suggest? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be shocked if this could make a blurb, but there's no problem with making a nomination for either. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Shocked' is probably too big of a word but I understand what you mean. However, I must point out that it certainly is notable and is widely being covered in the news. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "shocked" in the normal sense because I've seen other journalists (including Pulitzer-prize winners) who have been killed in theatres of conflict, who didn't even make RD. Just wanted you to know that up front. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could often be related to the article's quality and whether it is updated or not. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD per nom "I understand that she might have not been sufficiently notable in her field to be here". RD is for situations where the death itself is not notable, but the person's life clearly is. Neutral on full blurb for now, since none has been proposed at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb proposed. Let's see how this goes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current blurb/RD but if more sources pick up on the outrage of the French Presidency and (more importantly) if the French government authorizes some sort of action or intervention in the Central Africa Republic, I would support a blurb focusing on that angle with a mention of Camille Lepage's murder being an impetus. AgneCheese/Wine 23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
France is already involved militarily in the CAR [7] but even if it wasn't, I don't think they would deploy troops in a war-torn country because of a journalist they probably don't care much about. I've never heard of any country doing something like that before, but here is the French government's reaction exactly the way it is written down in the article → The Élysée said in a statement that French President François Hollande had ordered the immediate dispatch of a French team and police from the African force deployed in the country to the scene. "All necessary means will be deployed to shine light on the circumstances of this assassination and find the killers of our compatriot," the statement said, which also used the word assassinat ("murder" in English) to suggest that Paris has information that the young woman was targeted deliberately and in cold blood.Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not seeing this really being widely reported at all, Lepage was hardly a prize-winning journo. A sad death, but not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to post at this time; renominate later if this is confirmed. SpencerT♦C 01:12, 15 May 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.
Wait till it is confirmed that it was indeed the Santa Maria discovered. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. "May have found" means that it is unconfirmed; we should wait for confirmation. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit like a similar nomination that supported the "possible" find of MH370, we'd have looked extremely foolish then, we may well look foolish now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if confirmed Front page material for sure when/if it is.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. When this is confirmed, even it it takes years, it is HUGE. So nobody in the future call it stale, okay? Abductive (reasoning) 22:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if confirmed This would be huge if it legit but will really take years to confirm? AgneCheese/Wine 23:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Clearly noteworthy if confirmed, but “likely's” and “could be's” in headlines make me hesitant. --bender235 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 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.
Comment The search engines don't actually have to say 'yes' to that request. The judgement says information must be removed "unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information". Also a new human right would, I think, be added to the ECHR (whereas this is just case law interpreting the already-existing right to privacy). So the idea that a new human right is being established here seems like a bit of hyperbole to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this ruling is that information once published in a newspaper can be, although factually correct, requested to be removed from a search engine's index on the account of privacy and data protection. --bender235 (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is getting wide coverage, and I'm not sure whether appropriate for ITN, but the article is currently only two sentences. Needs expansion and a little more context to be of any use to readers. -- Shuddetalk 10:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This case simply applies well-established rights (to data protection and privacy) to new circumstances - in other words, what courts do all the time. It would have been more noteworthy if the ECJ had ruled that these rights didn't apply on the internet - "Court decides that same rules apply to the internet as elsewhere" isn't really much of a story. Neljack (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you read that, but this is clearly not the case. The "right" applied in this case is a 1995 EU Directive, which has not been applied to the internet or search engines in particular in this way in the 20 years before yesterday. --bender235 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. No new rights have been created here; the court has just interpreted the existing rules for the first time. So the court is saying that that right should have been applied in the internet / search engine context every since 1995, but no-one has brought it to the court before. The ruling is perhaps a bit surprising, but I'm not seeing the ITN-level significance of this. GoldenRing (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing super groundbreaking as noted - this extends rights in traditional media to online media. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you believe this? Newspaper archives, libraries, etc. are not required to withhold or remove certain information after it is deemed "irrelevant". This "right to be forgotten" is totally new, and only applies to online services. --bender235 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NYTimes frames the issue well - it is applied to search engines, not content providers. The ruling cannot make existing documents go away, but can make it difficult/impossible to find those documents by searching on the names of those that wish that. This is far less significant than the concept that every digital fingerprint of a person must be washed away. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't your argument just turn by 180 degrees? --bender235 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Prior to this, the right was to "have their data fully removed when it is no longer needed for the purposes for which it was collected", which means purging it from offline databases though not removing other matters of public record. This is the same concept. --MASEM (t)
Support in principle, as this is a potentially wide-ranging and important case. However, the issues are complicated and require careful explanation. As such, the article needs to be much more developed. If we post it as it is, at best we'll not be telling readers much, and at worst we'll be actively misleading them. Modest Geniustalk 03:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A precedent and the equivalent of saying every human has the right to live free of parasitic paparazzi who profit by invading their privacy. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivial. Someone point out the irony to the Spanish idiot who has made him even more noticeable in search results than he was before. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the publication of a ruling from the ECJ is newsworthy in itself regardless of what may happen to it in the future. CaptRik (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree and I hope it doesn't stand for very long - but strictly speaking I believe it would be against WP:CRYSTAL for us to reject the story on that argument alone. You could argue any murder conviction isn't final until all possible appeals have been tried but I'm sure we would post a guilty verdict being given on/around the time a court gave it. CaptRik (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] RD: Malik Bendjelloul
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:10, 15 May 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: Young Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker (Best Documentary Feature 2013), unexpected death. --Bruzaholm (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not meet the death criteria. Untimely death + Academy Award isn't enough to overcome the fact that he directed only one film. The article is fairly puny as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to article quality. Otherwise I'd have supported the nomination; he won several top awards in his field and his death was sudden. Mohamed CJ(talk) 08:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support clearly top of his field to win an Oscar...nothing bigger in the enterteinament wordl. Also a non-standard death pretty muts fits the billvLihaas (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose mainly because article is barely stub quality and because his death was untimely, he didn't really stake a career-claim on being top of the field, although the single Oscar confers significant notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Bongwarrior. Also article is very very light, definitely needs expansion as well (even a few sentences would significantly expand the article). -- Shuddetalk 10:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An Oscar might make him notable, but doesn't make him at the top of his field. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 14 May 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.
Comment - it would be useful to have an article on which to comment. A significant accident with ~160 dead. Maybe someone could start the Soma coal mine disaster article and we would then have something to discuss. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the mine article with the fire should be sufficient, at least for now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking at it, it does seem the mine isn't specified. I will create the disaster article you specified. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have updated created the article Soma coal mine disaster, but expansion is required. I will start some work on it, and probably get more to it later tonight. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high death toll, which unfortunately seems to be rising. Neljack (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article is sufficient, 200 dead. Abductive (reasoning) 04:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, reasons per my comment above, I've reassessed the article from stub to start class. Mjroots (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major disaster, ongoing news story. CaptRik (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that this might be one to consider for ongoing, given the length of time it took to rescue those Chilian workers from about a year back. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'd make that decision when this story is about to drop off the main ITN section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are different circumstances too, there were access/cave in problems in Chile which there are not here (yet). If the fire can get put out here in a relatively short time (and I don't know if it can), it would be over sooner. If they can't get the fire out, well then there are other problems. But yes, what TRM said. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Syria update
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:18, 15 May 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: Seems like an important turn of events. Obviously we could either replace the current blurb or add to it. Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't seem that much of a turning point. Not receiving wide coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose better to nominate a Syria "Ongoing" article which can be updated with these minor fluctuations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above, this extra element doesn't need a separate entry doktorbwordsdeeds 05:16, 14 May 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.
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: Scientist credited with the development of the leprosy vaccine (amongst others). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Legion of honour places him at the top of his field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legion of honour, while a clear indication of notability, is not really exclusive enough to warrant RD. His prince of Asturias award, as far as I know, is a lot more exclusive and prestigious, so that one is perhaps a better indicator of his importance. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets DC2. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon the sourcing of the biography section Support. The only two statements that are sourced in that section are that he turned 100, and that he died. Outside of that I think he meets the RD criteria. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly had a very significant impact. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid that I am going to have to oppose this. If one reads the sources, nowhere does it say he developed a working vaccine for leprosy. The Pan American Health Org says, "His work toward the development of a vaccine for the prevention of leprosy provided the basis for the development of an immunotherapy for leishmaniasis." What that means is that the leprosy vaccine didn't work, and other people used some of his work to do something with Leishmaniasis. I'm not clear why the BBC would make such an error, perhaps their budget cutbacks are to blame. I have removed the one weird mention of Convit from the leprosy article. Abductive (reasoning) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Convit vaccine is not the standard vaccine. The standard is BCG vaccine. Convit added killed Mycobacterium leprae to the BCG vaccine. This "convit vaccine" is sometimes tested in field trials. One can do a Google Scholar search and see for oneself that it is not more effective that BCG. By no means are the claims in the obituaries true. Somebody has been going around inserting falsehoods on Wikipedia, which may explain why the dummies in the news media believe it. Read the Candidate Vaccines paragraph here.Abductive (reasoning) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said the Convit vaccine was "standard", did they? No matter, he was nominated for a Nobel, and was declared a PAHO "public health hero" and won the Prince of Asturias Prize for scientific research. Regardless of your claims, he was still top of the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobel nominations are done willy-nilly. I had a friend whose dad and another prof cross-nominated each other as a joke. It means nothing. This PAHO "public health hero" of the Americas business is insufficient, and looks political. The Prince of Asturias Award did not get Luis García Berlanga onto ITN when he died: [8] and it is given mostly to people of Hispanic heritage. Some of the people listed at Prince of Asturias Awards don't have articles! This suggests that the award doesn't even confer notability, let alone a place ITN/RD. Abductive (reasoning) 23:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of an article only suggests lack of interest in creating one, not lack of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One supposes that there is a pretty tight correlation between lack of interest and lack of notability in overall article creation on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The correlation is much weaker if you are talking about subjects from non-English speaking countries, as you imply about the recipients of this award (and looking at the red links, they do indeed appear to be from non-English countries). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, you admit that the award is given preferentially to people from non-English speaking countries? So what this nomination has turned into is "A guy who didn't really help people avoid contracting leprosy but got an award anyway based on his ethnicity" Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said the redlinks are from non-English speaking countries and thus it is not all that meaningful they don't have articles. I made no attemept the count the number of people from different countries receiving the award (there certainly are some non-Hispanics among the blue links). I also haven't supported this, so I'm not sure why I need to "admit" anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I used you to make a rhetorical argument. Let's let others comment. Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too late now, you've managed clear the place. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not too late to post yet - only Sutton died more recently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of referring to Abductive's continual use of straw man arguments while avoiding the main concept - the man was top of his field. Now then, I'm finding it challenging to address your concerns Thaddeus as my Spanish is non-existent, and most sources are that lingo. I hope someone else can help, of course Abductive may continue to suggest that Convit had nothing at all to do with the leprosy vaccine but verifiable reliable sources beg to differ. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - referencing is still a little light - not weak enough for me to oppose, but not strong enough for me to support either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - article is now well referenced and ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RDStephen 02:44, 16 May 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: The news have been just announced within this hour, one of the best known artists, best known for work on Alien --Donnie Park (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minimum for the RD ticker, if not a full blurb. Hopefully his work isn't Alien to the average reader. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 10:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support article needs some more referencing, but notable enough for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I'm in agreement with TRM. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD Ticker. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well known and crucially for us well respected doktorbwordsdeeds 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD at the least, full blurb is reasonable. I think it depends on how you define his field - if his field is biomechanical art, then he's the undisputed master, the final benchmark, and deserves a full blurb. If his field is simply "visual fine arts" then he's extremely well known, highly influential on pop culture, but died in old age. - OldManNeptune⚓ 18:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referencing is a bit light & there are about a half dozen [citation needed] tags at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Undoubtedly a leader in his field - sure, it's a fairly specialist field but right at the top of his game. 3142 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready no current citation needed tags, removed unspecific section tag--references to primary works like books and movies do not need further citation. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for reading the credits of movies, according to WP:Primary "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
Comment more references required. An unreferenced list of movies is unsatisfactory, particularly when Giger isn't mentioned in all of the articles, let alone referenced there. Other tags added as clearly the quality has been overlooked by those in support and those who consider this ready to post to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed heading which somehow became broken, and made requests for citations totally explicit now for the avoidance of doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Galindo Mellado Cruz, one of the founding members of the Mexican drug cartelLos Zetas, and four other armed men are killed in a shootout with Mexican security forces after they raided Cruz's hideout in the city of Reynosa. (BBC News)
A Facebook page called "My Stealthy Freedom", in which women across Iran are posting photos of themselves without the hijab, has garnered more than 130,000 likes, a week after it was created. (The Guardian)(BBC News)
Business and economy
The European Central Bank has watered down standards for an ongoing review of Europe's banks, waiving deadlines and some data requests, according to a Reuters report based on "sources familiar with the process." (Reuters)
The ninth and final phase of the election concludes in India, with an all time high voter turnout of 66.64%. Final results will be declared on May 16. (Times Of India)
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: His "machines won the Indianapolis 500 six times in the 1950s and 1960s" according to article cited above. --Jinkinsontalk to me 19:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I don't want to down play his accomplishments because he was obviously a legendary car builder...but I'm not even sure Penske would pass RD. --162.95.216.222 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the IP says, "legendary car builder", which is sufficient for RD's "top of his field" criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be at the top of his field, which meets DC2. 331dot (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until article has better referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Ukraine vote
Not really getting close to any kind of support. And wasting time now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 12 May 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: Hot topic of the day that deals with the vote and it s repercussions/legitimacy. Its certinaly in the news. a MILLSTONE ROUND THE ESTABLISHMENT'S NECK. --Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is misleading. What I'm seeing in the news is a claim by pro-Russian separatists that their side won the referendum. Kiev is claiming the vote is a sham and there were no safeguards in place to prevent ballot-stuffing. I'm in favor of a wait-and-see approach before we post any further news stories. --WaltCip (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this stage. Symbolic muppet-puppet show with no real effect unless Putin decides to annex them as well, which I think is rather unlikely. Brandmeistertalk 15:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is already covered by the "Ukrainian Unrest" ongoing link in ITN.128.214.172.225 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Another nomination with a very biased nomination comment. I don't think these votes are worth our attention unless either Moscow or Kiev treat them as such, and as of now there's no sign of either. 'A millstone round the establishment's neck'? Please. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Guardian reports "Donetsk region asks to join Russia." [9] This seems to substantiate a drift toward annexation, à la Crimea. (Is anyone surprised?) Sca (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see what actually happens following this widely-derided vote. If Russia annexes them, or they become independent, sure. But until that happens we have a non-binding vote in a sub-national entity, which isn't enough for ITN in my opinion. Modest Geniustalk 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the flurry of stuff coming out of Ukraine, we need to be sure of the details, and confident about the state of any linked article, before jumping into frenzied nominations. doktorbwordsdeeds 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. We already have an "ongoing" link to this, this does not necessarily represent a significant development yet to warrant a return to a full blurb. If and when more comes of this, we can revisit the issue. --Jayron32 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A farce with little value. thayts💬 18:42, 12 May 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 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: Great Australian footballer, but probably more importantly, a great coach, who coached four clubs at the highest level of competition, and won four premierships. Inaugural inductee into the Australian Football Hall of Fame. Many other top level achievements. Maintained public attention into his older years through his intense exercise regime, which he maintained right up to his final illness at the age of 82. "Every morning he woke up at 5:20 and went for an 8 km run, followed by 250 push-ups and a swim in Port Phillip Bay, and when he got home he did 700 crunches and sit-ups." --HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this in principle(seems to meet DC2 in terms of Australian Rules football), but very little of the article has citations. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support HiLo makes a compelling case. Neljack (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based purely on article quality (or lack of it). Two or three whole sections unreferenced inline, and lots of POV language. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm agnostic on this nomination, but the article needs a lot of work before it's in a post-able state. The vast majority of the text is totally unreferenced. The few references that are there refer entirely to his life after 2011. Modest Geniustalk 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article needs significant work but moreover, a player turned coach of a game that a tiny proportion of the world's population actually even know of (or arguably more importantly, care about) is not suited to a global list of recent events / RDs. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not... complain about an event only relating to a single country". AlexTiefling (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One could say the same about many of the subjects of RD but the criterion is widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. In this case the field happens to be Australian football. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with relating to a single country - I'm sure there's fans of this game all over the world, read it again. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read it just fine the first time. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An observation: The IP editor trying to tell us that Australian football is a minor sport has an address that geolocates to Sydney, Australia. While Australian football is by far the strongest football code in Australia, by any measure, it's not the strongest code in Sydney. Rugby league is stronger. Soccer may be too. But Australian football is growing in that market. It's likely that our IP editor is a fan of one of the latter two sports, and perhpas feels obliged to discredit Australian football at any opportunity. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked past contributions from that IP address. They include many from an obvious soccer fan, who opposed an eventually successful position I took on the issue of the naming of Soccer in Australia in Wikipedia articles. Looks like we have a history. It's not just Aussie Rules he opposes. It's me too. It's sad that he has let his sports obsession get in the way of objectivity here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HiLo48, I'm actually far more an AFL fan than I am a Rugby Leage fan or Association Football (soccer) fan, but I'm definitely not as obsessed with AFL as some Australians (Melbournians) are - it's almost a religion for some, isn't it? I'm not based in Sydney at all, in fact as I write this I'm sitting in Adelaide. I work in numerous states of Australia, as well as in USA and New Zealand regularly. My primary place of residence is Melbourne, but I spend a significant portion of time every year in Los Angeles and various other cities as my job requires. I digress, my opposition to the naming convention of Association Football Australia is nothing to do with my opposition to the RD nomination here, bygones are most definitely bygones and the dead horse has been beaten far beyond what is required. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll accept that. But I still don't understand your opposition here. If someone grows up in a city like Melbourne, which IS dominated by one winter sport, reaches the highest levels of playing and coaching in that sport, and remains a very public and highly respected member of the community until he is in his eighties, he has done pretty much all he had the opportunity to do. We cannot ask for more. Your comments did read more like a criticism of the game, or of the city, than of Tom Hafey. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Your IP address still geolocates to Ryde, NSW. Not helpful, eh?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the VPN I use to access the internet from wherever I'm based day to day must be based out of Ryde or somewhere nearby. Never been to Ryde myself but I understand it's a fairly large commercial area of Sydney so the ISP's VPN hosting is probably based there 203.13.128.104 (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said about the last American football player nominated, the international popularity (or lack there of) of the sport is not relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sounds notable enough (I don't know much about Aussie Rules Football myself), but the article is not up to scratch reference wise at the moment. On a side note, I'm jealous of how fit this guy must have been with that training regeme! Phylactory (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' Agree with above comments about lack of article quality. Would support if the article about Tom was improved. Would do this myself but don't have the time at the moment unfortunately 49.183.227.11 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article work - agree with others, he is ideal for RD but the article is not up to scratch. A serious need for referencing and rewriting in an encyclopedic tone. GoldenRing (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen people in athletic halls of fame rejected here, and the table in "Comparative coaching statistics" suggests he's not the top of his field beyond that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Past mistakes are hardly a good reason to oppose something. Opposing because too high of a standard was applied in the past is also the least effective way to cause change... As to the other comment - I have no clue what you mean. Hafey has the 5th most wins in the history of the game, with 3+ less years coaching than everyone ahead of him. Are you suggesting only the winningest coach in history (who died in 1953) is notable enough? --ThaddeusB (talk)
Support The above points about the article are valid, but definitely meets the criteria in my opinion. CaptRik (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the article a good copyedit. That fixed the tone, but of course did nothing for the referencing. I would appreciate some help as I am very busy IRL. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Chronic lack of inline citations and sources means this should not be on the main page, even if we forget that this is a WP:BLP (which applies to the recently deceased). -- Shuddetalk 10:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, here we are, with another of User:HiLo48's Australia nominations falling off the bottom of the pile because the article isn't up to scratch and nobody can be bothered to do anything about it. I've done my best to add some references, to an obituary in The Age and to afltables.com, but the former is fairly sparse on detail and the latter of course is a primary source which establishes some statistics about his career and no more. The referencing I've added establishes the bare facts of his career, but much of the description of his methods and motivations remain unreferenced. I think that for this to improve, and for it to have any chance of making the RD ticker before becoming stale, someone will need to find a paper source to add references. The most likely is The Hafey Years - Reliving a golden era at Tigerland. I think it's extremely unlikely that I'm going to find a copy of this in the next few days - I've checked my local library network and the British Library and neither have a copy. So it's up to someone, probably someone in Victoria, Australia, to add some references or see this nom go the way of so many others. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people's nominations fail for lots of reasons. I did what I could despite being extremely busy this week and unfortunately HiLo was too busy to help. It happens, but it is not unique to HiLo's nominations. Also, we posted an Australia person to RD just a day before this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen football supporters are killed in Kinshasa in a stampede caused by tear gas being thrown into the stand by police officers attempting to defuse a hostile incident. (Radio Okapi)
[Closed] RD: Patrick Lucey
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:54, 14 May 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: Former governor of Wisconsin and ambassador to Mexico--seems at least somewhat prestigious. --Jinkinsontalk to me 01:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, a run-of-the-mill politician and short-term ambassador. I'm not seeing anything that raises him to the notability required for RD. Stephen 02:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A state governor and an ambassador(a political position) does not meet any of the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per 331dot and The Rambling Man Rhodesisland (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per all of the above. Sorry, just not significant enough. Modest Geniustalk 22:53, 12 May 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: Clearly someone at the top of his field: Gasnier has been inducted into multiple Hall of Fames, and has appeared on numerous lists of the all-time greatest rugby players. He received the Order of Australia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true elsewhere too (e.g. in New Zealand and Britain). Generally speaking rugby union is called "rugby" and rugby league is called "league". Unless I could tell otherwise from the context, I would always interpret "rugby" as meaning "rugby union". Neljack (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the UK, 'rugby' can be rugby league or rugby union (although if neither is stated explicitly then it's probably but not definitely rugby union). We don't use the single word 'league' by itself to indicate rugby league.Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support article needs some fixing up, I'll try to help out in that regard over the next 24 hours, but an ideal candidate for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pending additional referencing I would Support, seems like a good candidate for RD. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Aussie sportsman. Well known even on the other side of the Barassi Line, where I live. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of league's true greats. Neljack (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. His list of honors would seem to qualify him for RD. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now improved, marking ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RDStephen 01:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose and pre-empting the standard call for more prose. Right now, the target article has nothing more than a single sentence update, and very little prose in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work. This should obviously go up as soon as it's ready, but the article currently has only one sentence of update, and only a few paragraphs of prose in total. It needs fleshing out with some actual content and a description of the season (something like the season summary from last year) before it can go up. Modest Geniustalk 18:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I just want to point out that last year's season summary (that you linked) appears to only be written up to December. CaptRik (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Well spotted. One or two (referenced) paragraphs covering the whole season would be enough. I'm surprised this article hasn't received more attention from editors - it's still just a bunch of tables and list of awards. Modest Geniustalk 15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - I have added a textual summary of the season and improved the lead. Unless there are any quality objections, this should be ready to go per WP:ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've tried to turn that section into British English and added a few {{cn}}s. Most of those should be easy to address, and then this looks good to go. Modest Geniustalk 04:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Also a significant event for South Africa as it falls on the 20th year of democracy. Nathan121212 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more prose on the results and probably a reaction section. Definitely do not use the altblurb - there is no reason to bring apartheid into it. Mainblurb is also weird - why not use the standard phrasing: "The ruling African National Congress wins a majority in the South African general election"?--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the mainblurb accordingly. - htonl (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant event for South Africa and the article is quite comprehensive. HelenOnline 17:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On ITNR so no need to support. The article seems fine, and has been updated with the full result. Looks good to go, marking [ready]. Modest Geniustalk 18:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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: The Eurovision Song Contest is the largest international music competition in the world, which every year is widely followed outside Europe (especially in Australia). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The most watched singing competition show in the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR items do not need support related to the merits of the event(ITNR presumes notability), merely about the quality of the article and the blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well...Support Its continued inclusion on ITN/R! --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been argued in the past that a specific instance of ITNR may not be an ITN for reasons just beyond lack of article quality, though the arguments should be why that specific instance of ITNR shouldn't be included, and not a point of the repeated ITNR nomination overall. Not to say this applies here , just that ITNR is not as automatic as claimed. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it shouldn't be ITNR. Is that what you're saying? If so, what is the point of ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, if we normally would post it, then it should be listed at ITNR. But in exceptional cases that are beyond article quality reasons, there might be reasons not to post a specific occurance of an ITNR. The next time it's back to normal; the ITNR tag is to say "we normally post these events, so let's start discussion from that point, and not debate whether the event should be posted in the first place". For example, say there's a case of a national election where every source prior to the election has pegged the current seat winning by a landslide, and that's exactly what happens, an unquestionable landslide in the incumbant's favor. It might not be necessary to post that result even though national election results are an ITNR. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem is correct. Look at the top of this nomination - the note on the template indicating that it is ITN/R says: "Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it." "Generally", not "always". A recent case in point is the Olympic Ice Hockey Final earlier this year, which despite an adequate update and article quality was not posted because there was consensus against it. Neljack (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but still no need to nominate an item 16 hours before it can be updated, especially one at ITNR. Regardless, time to move on, this is no longer productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per 331dot, the early nomination of an ITNR, before the event has even occurred, is simply a waste of time as we need to judge iTNR items on the quality of their update. This clearly cannot happen until the contest is concluded, some 15 hours after the time this was nominated. Still, at least someone gets a nomination credit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a rather lovely selection of free images to go with the blurb btw. - JuneGloomTalk 22:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time to post this.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, no image used....would have been fun to see a "bearded lady" on the front page ..--Stemoc (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated an image. Hopefully an admin will add it soon. It is as you say needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well its Mother's Day around the world, what better way to celebrate it then with a picture of a bearded lady...haha.--Stemoc (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I do hope someone adds the image soon to the ITN section.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - the beard alone is clearly notable. Good work getting an image. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this is live on ITN I'm trying to tidy up the article, but I'm hitting a snag - see the talk page. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:07, 12 May 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
