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).
Boko Haram militants attack Chad for the first time after 30 fighters crossed Lake Chad in four motorboats and attacked the village of Ngouboua. Chad recently joined Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon in a military coalition against Boko Haram. (BBC)
Voters elect Wang Rong Chairman of the People's Political Consultative Conference of Guangdong province, in China, replacing Zhu Mingguo, who was dismissed for corruption. (SCMP)
Six Taiwanese prisoners commit suicide after releasing hostages captured yesterday in Kaohsiung. The prisoners were protesting their sentences and alleged poor conditions of the Taiwanese prison system. (BBC)
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.
Support as nom. Nik Aziz was a giant of Malaysian politics. For over two decades he was the "Spiritual Leader", and national figurehead, of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party. He also governed the state of Kelantan for 23 years, often standing alone during a period in which the Barisan Nasional coalition dominated the rest of Malaysia. During this time he achieved the unique feat of governing with quite conservative, often hardline, Islamist principles, yet maintaining a very high level of popularity. But it is not his tenure leading a state government that makes him significant; it is his national standing as the Islamist leader of his generation. Bloomberg quotes an expert who, correctly in my opinion, says, "Nik Aziz was the face of political Islam" in Malaysia." --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nominatee seems to have held a governorial position, and that of minority party chief. We would not post an American with such a small resume, so I have to Oppose at this point. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but it doesn't tell the full story. A Western comparison would be Ted Kennedy: an elected official for half a century who was the figurehead for a political movement (liberalism/Islamism). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose – This deal is nothing new, and is quite weak. It is merely a slightly clarified update of the failed Minsk Protocol. There is no reason why the ongoing bit cannot handle this matter, as it already does. RGloucester — ☎19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we have an ongoing already, besides there is nothing saying currently that this deal will be any more effective dealing with this war than Minsk protocol which collapsed. SeraV (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can/ does Wikipedia collect data on number of clicks on each link of the Main Page? I'd be very interested to see the statistics. Maybe it's policy that an ongoing has to cover any news event. But I'm sceptical - regular readers will not be prompted to click on anything new, irregular readers may not even realise where to find that news. Does ongoing ever get dumped in favour of a new event? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not clicks but you can look at page views. An article linked to on the Main Page will generally see an increase in page views, which might measure what you're looking for. SpencerT♦C20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't object, although 7 hours seems a bit of a short time. I'd dispute that "nothing saying currently that this deal will be any more effective..." is a valid reason to oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing untoward about this nomination. If something like a pull-out or a third party inspection force is installed, I don't think anyone will oppose either a new nomination or reopening this. But this is about the third "agreement" that's been nominated followed the within the next day or so by some sort of horrendous blast. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reiterating Medeis' point, this is an "agreement" that doesn't go into effect until Sunday at midnight - and even now there are more Russian munitions being sent in to try to secure additional territory. But if the truce occurs, and holds, then it will definitely be worth reporting here. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Longtime CBS news correspondent, recipient of over 40 major awards, and a senior foreign reporter for 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes II. Light show (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wanted to add this nom the moment it happened, didn't know how to..he qualifies easily though with 27 emmys, a blurb is also a possibility..no?..article needs a bit more update, it really doesn't reflect his 50 year career and achievements.. --Stemoc09:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "serious BLP issues"? The article has references, no orange tags, and on a surface read appears fine to me. Also, "dead American ticker"... real helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think comments like these are nonconstructive. We can't help that there's been a run of Americans dying who meet RD criteria. If you want to break it up, nominate some worthy non-Americans. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, many of them don't meet the criteria, yet the consensus being mainly American and the posting admins being mainly American means we're inundated and hence RD has now become the Dead American ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that they don't meet the criteria, and I don't agree that there's a group of Americans pushing these articles. I think we need to find a better way of dealing with this than smearing each other from across the Atlantic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Please stop with the "dead American ticker" disrespectful nonsense. If Bill Gates died tomorrow, would you object to RD because there's been too many Americans listed on RD lately? And if Bob's no more important than just a "dead American ticker", then why does bbc.com have his death listed as one of the top stories? --AmaryllisGardenertalk19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AmaryllisGardener: Please stop with the "disrespectful nonsense" nonsense. It's a statement of fact. Right now we have a mediocre golfer and two other US sports personalities on RD, we're about to sanction two more, it's nothing more than fact. BBC.com does not have it listed as one of its top stories. It has it listed as an American/Canadian story ranking right down the bottom of the page. If your measure of notability is that it appears on the BBC main page, then be prepared to see a raft of dead Brits coming your way soon, since beyond that, there seems to be no real justification for many of these RDs, other than sheer number of US voters and admins here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the version we see in the UK, obviously, we use bbc.co.uk where this story isn't featured at all on the main page. And is that the same Fox News who declared Birmingham a no-go zone for non-Muslims? Sure, there's plenty of US coverage, no doubt at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. And nice rationale for support by the way. Seems more and more commonplace these days to just !vote and not actually offer any rationale whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM: Err, the man won 27 Emmy Awards and 4 Peabody Awards. Is there anyone questioning Mr. Simon's notability to appear in the recent deaths section? Broadly, my understanding of having an "In the news" section on the main page is that it gives us an opportunity to highlight our articles and allow them to expand and improve. This line of reasoning seems to stand in direct contradiction to the idea that we would intentionally omit a notable recent death because of the poor shape an article is in. Linus's Law and all that. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both of you have forgotten how Wikipedia works. When I made my comment, there was a CLEAR BLP violation, as evidenced by this subsequent edit. Just because I haven't rushed back to the Dead American ticker to confirm it's been removed, it doesn't mean the objection wasn't completely valid to start with. But hell, who am I to stand in the way of posting crap quality Dead American articles, regardless of such clear policy violations? Yes we definitely should omit a recent RD because of poor article shape. If you want to change that, let's update the RD criteria accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Recognizing that the press/media is very self-congratulatory about itself, he still had a good number of awards from the field, so seems to meet our criteria. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Masem. I was going to oppose, basically because I haven't watched 60 Minutes since The Simpsons premiered. But the list of awards is pretty impressive, and it seems like he actually did in-the-field journalism. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi clashes and attacks kill at least 31 people. (AP)
Business and economy
Rite Aid, one of the largest chains of pharmacies in the United States, announces that it is purchasing EnvisionRx, a pharmacy benefits manager, from TPG Capital, for $2 billion. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
The Greek Coast Guard rescues all 22 crewmen from a Cyprus-flagged vessel Good Faith that ran aground on the Greek island of Andros during a storm in the Aegean Sea. (AP)
A court in the city of Grosseto convicts the former captain of the Costa Concordia, Francesco Schettino, of manslaughter for his part in the ship's January 2012 sinking, and sentences him to 16 years in jail. (BBC)
Little League Baseball strips Chicago's Little League championship team Jackie Robinson West of their 2014 Little League World Series US title after an investigation revealed the team had falsified boundaries to field ineligible players. The league names Mountain Ridge Little League of Las Vegas, Nevada, the US champion due to the vacating of Jackie Robinson West's wins. (AP)(Little League.org)
Support in principle per 331dot - I don't think it matters that we posted the event because not every major disaster also then leads to a substantial prison sentence for one of the main actors. However the article needs some work. BencherliteTalk10:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Conviction in a large criminal case following on from a major disaster. We often post convictions, the fact that the case arose from a previously posted disaster is irrelevant. Also, puzzled why people say this is 're-listing' or 'it has already been featured', when it clearly hasn't been? Surely people can tell the difference between a disaster and the legal cases arising from that disaster? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose combined blurb. The two events are unrelated and so should be individually featured or not featured on their own merits. That they coincidentally happened about the same time is nothing more than a coincidence. Thryduulf (talk)
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: Major figure of Chinese politics during 1980s, was particularly influential in Communist propaganda in the lead up of Tiananmen; Article is in good quality. Colipon+(Talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose under-referenced article and do we suddenly post everyone who dies that's been inducted to the "Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame"? I guess with our new American sportsperson death ticker, quality and notability are both somewhat irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you've heard of him or not isn't relevant. Nor is his nationality or the number of similar people to die recently, TRM, but you know that already. We can't help who dies when. His induction to the basketball hall of fame and sources calling him a "coaching legend" put him in DC#2. I agree the article is underreferenced at this point and time, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets DC2; very high win percentage, championship coach, described as one of the more successful coaches and notable for his behavior. I also think it is important to remember that no one can help when people who meet the RD criteria die or where they come from, so let's please stop calling this the "American sportsperson death ticker" as there is no concerted effort to make it such. Anyone who would like to see others posted, please nominate them(such as the Chinese politician above). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added new section summarizing his legacy at Jerry Tarkanian#Legacy. He's in the Hall of Fame, the highest honor in the sport of basketball. His offensive and defensive strategies revolutionized the game. He transformed the UNLV from a small college into a national powerhouse. He took chances on players that other big programs wouldn't, which was polarizing because of their troubled backgrounds and their urban upbringing. He allowed his players to express themselves, and their style impacted popular culture decades before the more recent Fab Five phenomena; UNLV sweatshirts became nationally popular. Tarkanian was a celebrity in Las Vegas in an era before the town became the glitzy destination that it is today.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bagumba (I guess that's easy to say). One of the winningest basketball coaches in NCAA history, coached the Runnin' Rebels to back-to-back Final Four appearances including winning the national title once. - Bossanoven (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The text on his NCAA career is extremely paucous. The section on his granddaughter, etc., is twice as large. That's quite odd for an NCAA legend. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose winning multiple NCAA championships must be our baseline for college basketball coaches. While this may limit our RD "pool" to fewer coaches, what's left would be truly deserving of an RD post. It's too bad Tarkanian didn't coach a big enough program for him to merit multiple titles, but that the way it is. –HTD08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a university coach who got a sympathy vote into a club of more than 330 people when he was in his 80s. This idea that entry into a "Hall of Fame" confers immediate posting rights really has to end. It's a particularly American construct, with a not particularly exclusive membership. Stephen11:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your citation that it was a sympathy vote? In addition, there are 335 members of the Basketball Hall of Fame, which was opened in 1959, including players and coaches. Between men's and women's college basketball, there are 750 NCAA division I teams and 10,619 players this season alone [1]. So yeah, it's pretty damn exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note from admin I'd have posted this on support based on significance, but article quality is still an issue. Much of the career synopsis is unreferenced. Please try to find references for all of the information in that section, and an admin can post this. --Jayron3217:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only one NCAA championship--that's certainly not enough on its own. He really was only a very famous figure on the national scene for a few years in the late 80s/early 90s. His high winning percentage was in part due to playing in a weak conference. I would argue that if it wasn't for that one single team he coached to a championship in 1990, this wouldn't be a discussion at all. Unlike other prominent college coaches of the era he never coached an Olympic team or other international competition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support He is considered a legend in college basketball history. His death made headlines throughout the American press. I don't see why his name shouldn't be posted in recent deaths. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A big fish. But a big fish in what, internationally speaking, is a relatively small and insignificant pond (US college basketball). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, utterly symbolic post-posting oppose. I would advice a lot of the voters here to gain some perspective on the world and understand why this has no place whatsoever on the Mediocre American Sports Persons Ticker RD ticker. Oh well, a man can dream. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's the point of contention, on how Tarkanian passes the criteria. Let's not even go to "it's college amateur basketball" argument. Let's focus on those two seasons he coached UNLV. He won some 40 consecutive games, but he was on a conference where aside from his team, there was only one ranked team, and that was ranked #24 (out of 25). He could had very much inflated his winning percentage at that time. –HTD23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the win's per se, which is why I have spent [too much] time expanding the article, ITN or not. He used junior college transfers, started a mostly black lineup, and recruited those with a checkered background before anyone dared to. Tark adapted to his players, as opposed to iron fist coaches like Dean Smith, Coach K, Bobby Knight. UNLV teams were Fab Five before Fab Five in Michigan. He challenged the NCAA, which only in this decade people are starting to realize is flawed. Consider UNLV was in the middle of a dessert, Las Vegas was not the city it is today, and he turned a mid-major program (before the term mid-major probably existed) literally in the middle of nowhere into a powerhouse. Whatever your opinion of his style, it's pretty clear he has impacted basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no shortages of coaching styles in any sport. The likes of Smith and Coach K had far more success (and opportunities for success) than Tark. It's not like the UNLV were the first "Fab Five"; I guess that distinction belongs to the Texas Western team, right? The first NCAA basketball champs, Oregon (GO DUCKS) are in a middle of a forest, and while they didn't become a powerhouse, perhaps Oregon's conference was probably a little tougher than UNLV's. Smith and Coach K truly was/is widely regarded as very important figures. Tark might be "important", but not "very important". –HTD00:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: American psychologist, creator of Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and founder of the Center for Nonviolent Communication (an international non-profit organization), who was honoured with many awards (e.g. Bridge of Peace Nonviolence Award from the Global Village Foundation in 2006). NVC helps people to resolve conflicts peacefully and was successfully used in peace talks, too, so it is particularly important the the current global situation Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is way off the quality required, and there's no indication that this death is truly "in the news" outside the individual's own organisation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose his death is not in the news (can't find it anywhere apart from a Buddhist news publication, Lion's Roar), the article is far below main page standards, the awards that he was apparently given are hardly leading awards from major bodies, and he's overall far below the level of importance and prominence that the RD slot is for. BencherliteTalk11:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: This is getting a lot of media coverage, including from countries besides the US (e.g. see Guardian link above and The Telegraph). It is also on the homepages of BBC and CNN (although it is not the lead story on either). Everymorningtalk21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I go to bbc.com and look below the story about the Costa Concordia captain on the left side, I see this story, which states that the murders "sparked global outrage." Seems significant to me. Everymorningtalk21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If it's a hate crime, then there's potentially something here. If it's about a dispute over a parking space, then it doesn't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The perp is white, so no doubt he will not be branded a terrorist, and we all be told to calm down and accept an explanation of this which ignores race and religion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurbNeutral, see my comment below. It's been getting a lot of attention, and it's on the front pages of my go-to news websites to check a story's importance (foxnews.com, nytimes.com, and bbc.com). Sad, horrific incident. But I'd leave out "Muslim", let's keep it neutral for now. --AmaryllisGardenertalk22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commnent. I've seen coverage of this on French TV, and the story was not the murders, but the fact that they have had so little attention from US media (whereas if the killer had been Muslim and the victims non-Muslim...). Not sure if that points to we should post (in the name of consistency) or we shouldn't (because it's not in the useless racist news). Formerip (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: a neighbor has killed three people and a motive is not confirmed. This is not global news. Putting "Muslim" in the blurb is stirring as a hate crime motive is not confirmed. They are also students, neighbors, Americans and humans. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we did not post the shooting of two cops in NYC or the French Deli shooting. The fact that this may have been a hate crime in no way brings it to the level of the Korean airline crash of the Russian bombing of a civilian bus we totally ignored. To address Evereymorning above, where is the nomination for Obama's request for a formal declaration of war against ISIS? In the long term, this will be a footnote's footnote. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not being notably reported in the UK, nor is it linked from the UK BBC homepage. A trivial neighbour bust-up which resulted in a standard US finish with gun crime and deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I agree with Muboshgu's opinion. Thus we should wait on this and consider again once we know more (specifically about the actual motives of the suspect). Palmtree5551 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to the BBC, and digging down in the US section of the BBC website and finding the second from bottom story here, he "gave himself up to police". His wife "said that the incident had nothing to do with religion". The report goes on to note that the perp "apparently had a history of conflicts with neighbours over parking spaces". And because it's the US, you can shoot your neighbours because guns are freely available. That they were Muslims seems coincidental. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this [8] which seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. Thus the point that we should wait on this until we know for sure outside of media speculation and speculation by the perp's wife and by people close to the victims Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the first one that hasn't ignored it. Update: The motive is still unknown. Hate crime? Parking dispute? Maybe both? The alleged perp was known for wearing a sidearm in public, to intimidate others in the course of these disputes. And he called the towing company so often that they banned him. Whether the Times of India has it right that he also hated religion, I have not seen in American coverage. But to the family of the victims, it feels like a hate crime, and until proven otherwise, the possibility of it being a hate crime is still on the table. And the FBI has come into it now, too. The only valid answer here is "Wait and see." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - In America, I cannot access the British version of bbc online. So I asked about it, and those who can see it have told me that the British version of bbc online not only links to the story, but that it's currently in the top ten most-read in the UK version of the website. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lunatic from everything I have heard today, the shooter was a madman, divorced in the 90's, whose "beef" was about a parking space. Given we're not about to post that a lunatic shot three children over a parking space, I continue my opposition to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a record for association football, but not for sports in general. The numbers are giving me a headache, but it appears that this is less than the value of the National Football League's various television rights. I could be mistaken, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I was going to oppose this as a routine contract deal between businesses, but on researching it turns out that this is indeed notable. The rights sold for double what they did in the last contract, and is a record (on amount per year). This bidding war demonstrates the increasing national significance of the Premier League. Mamyles (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Presumably, almost every time the TV rights for the Premier League are sold, it is going to set a new record for domestic football/soccer. None of the sources are very clear about what sort of record has been set, but it is almost certainly going to be narrower that "sport" (because NFL and the World Series appear to make more in TV rights) or "football" (although it's possible that this is the biggest ever single deal, the Champions League is probably more lucrative overall). Does anyone have any information that this is more than a "well, of course" type record? Formerip (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the significance is not yet outlined well in the article. Based on my (brief) research, the price paid for this national contract was almost twice the previous contract. This contract ($2.5 bil/yr) cost more per year than the current NFL contract ($800 mil/yr), even though this Premier League contract is for one relatively small country. Basically, television rights for the Premier League in the UK (population 66 million) are now worth three times as much as those for the NFL in the USA (population 320 million). Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used this source to come up with my figure of $800 mil/yr. Just goes to show that Wikipedia may not always be right. In any case, that the amount paid for these television rights doubled in 3 years seems interesting and notable enough for me. Mamyles (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per FormerIP, the rights to broadcast the English Premier League in the UK have just been purchased, per capita, for over six times the rights to broadcast the NFL in the USA. This is big potatoes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't seem to have a source for this per capita record. Plus, if the rights to the Faroese Premier League sold for a little over $2 million, that would break this per capita record. Would we post that? Formerip (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can do the math(s), the USA has a population that's around 330m vs the UK at around 60m? And no, your straw man is pointless. This is all about the record amount. The per capita argument is simply contextual to refute any possible argument that the NFL rights are in any way comparable for the audience the TV is sold to. I think you know this but I guess it needs spelling out. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except, what record are you referring to? The only thing we appear able to either source or calculate is that this is a record for EPL UK TV rights. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the record is based on the fact of (worldwide) inflation, and has nothing to do with actual accomplishments by an objective standard. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not against having association football stories in ITN, but this seems to be more suitable for International Business Times or Forbes. Impressing sum, but so what? Everyone would still watch Premier League without any glaring difference. Brandmeistertalk22:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, posting this would be disruptive to years of work building consensus that news stories such as this don't deserve an article, let alone increasing readership by display on the main page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have its own article, and in what sense is posting a huge business deal not something we could (and should) consider for the main page? I grant you it's not an American sport, but it's world-wide... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"starkly routine" - that's funny. I'm not sure when else in the rest of the world that a deal like this would equate to finishing 20th out of 20 teams would now result in prize money of £99 million. But hey, it's soccer, who cares about such a parochial game? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if the NFL domestic TV rights were sold tomorrow for over $50 billion, are you suggesting we wouldn't be inundated with claims to post it as a "significant business deal"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Not everything has to be about American bias at ITN/C, TRM. And it doesn't all matter about where we are from. But do you want us to include the "flagicon" template in our signatures to announce our nationality? That's what I have gotten from the four months I've contributed to ITN/C. Some Americans know that the Premier League is a big deal, and likewise I'm sure some Brits know that the NFL is. --AmaryllisGardenertalk21:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the NFL were to sell all of its television rights to ESPN (which in terms of the NFL viewing audience would be earth-shattering indeed), I would not support it, because it's not internationally significant enough.--WaltCip (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point. The Premier League is truly global, unlike NFL. It's a global phenomenon. The fact the domestic rights are sold for £10m per game is incredible. Don't forget we're talking about hard cash here, not just viewers. It's internationally significant, can you show me another sport that's sold globally in such a fashion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose routine business deal, a side detail to sports. On a slightly different topic, I'm a bit surprised that the Premier League is the only league where its winner gets an ITN mention, when Spain and Germany get worldwide attention too...I'd rather just the Champions League '''tAD''' (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This isn't just "another routine business deal" - this is the largest deal ever made for the League. The sport isn't the focus of this, it's the record that is. Challenger l (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Swiss Leaks (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A journalistic investigation labelled Swiss Leaks revealed details about the business conduct of the private bank HSBC. (Post) Alternative blurb: A leak of data from the bank HSBC in 2007 is revealed to contain information about tax avoidance schemes and other questionable business conduct. News source(s):CBS (US), Le Monde, News.com.au, The Guardian Credits:
I thank you for the nomination; Perhaps it was a little misleading, but my overall point is that I don't really see a reason to post this other than to embarrass this big bank and get them in trouble- which may be valid- but isn't what ITN is for. As I said, usually investigations are not posted, maybe an arrest but usually a conviction. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse the involved International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with a NGO or a political group. They are just journalists. Most articles in ITN are based on some sort of "journaistic investigation". You should not insinuate that the event is to embarrass a bank or a business. Journalism is about reporting to the public issues of general interest. ITN pursuits the same goal. Whether the event may be perceived as positive or negative doesn't matter here. Luxsarl (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Just journalists" is still a private organization. ITN is not a newspaper for reporting on the public interest; it is for highlighting Wikipedia articles about subjects that are in the news. Wikinews might be better suited for that kind of story. I'm not sure what you mean by "most articles in ITN are based on some sort of journalistic investigation"; most nominations regarding criminal activity are, as I said, regarding arrests or convictions by governments. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
News organisations such as newspapers are private organisations. So? The ICIJ is a network of jouralists from reputable media organisations. "The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is a global network of 185 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories" [9]. The article Swiss Leaks is "in the news". The article is about a leaked dataset. This dataset has been investigated by journalists (Le Monde, CBS, Guardian, NDR, etc.). The article is not about criminal activity per se. Luxsarl (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page states that a Belgian judge might issue arrest warrants, along with other countries taking legal action(like the US); I think that would be a much better hook for this story than the release of an investigation- or at least making the blurb more about the leak instead of the investigation(though this leak occurred in 2007). 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the old "we've posted stuff before so let's post stuff again" line of argument. Some balance would make it balanced. Three out of the five sources used in the article are from the ICIJ itself. We have allegations presented as fact: HSBC helped dictators such as Hosni Mubarak (Egypt), Ben Ali (Tunesia), Bashar al-Assad (Syria) to steal money from their countries. (And isn't "dictator" a non-neutral term anyway)? The leaked documents prove – "says the ICIJ / according to the ICIJ"? No, this is just presented as plain fact in Wikipedia's voice. Where's the coverage of HSBC's response in all this? I have no great love of banking practices but this is just completely unsuitable for the main page in anything like its current state. BencherliteTalk14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There can only be balance so far as what reliable sources provide. If there are some detailing the bank's response, certainly those should be included. My point was not a line of argument, just an observation. I also don't believe "dictator" is a non-neutral term if it is applied to people elected in elections generally regarded as unfair or rigged. Saddam Hussein was reelected many times with 99% of the vote; that doesn't mean he wasn't a dictator. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Understanding that the leaks and what it implicates to the bank being important, I think we need to wait for the likely inevitable legal case against the bank that will result from this (assuming the leaked information is true). I'm not sure if now is the time to post this. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by balance, it is not very likely that HSBC have followed all relevant laws here after all. This is also same bank that was found by the US to have been laundering drug money for mexican drug cartels, and have been accused to have done the same for terrorist, so this bank have known history of criminal conduct already. SeraV (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP is objective and neutral so we cannot assume that the leaked information is valid until law officials tell us this or that the bank has done anything wrong in this specific manner. As such, the article is written in a manner that already presumes the bank has done these things. We can cite that the leaked information claims that the bank did it, but we cannot say factually that they did. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Countries are very unwilling to prosecute these banks because they are apparently too big for that. See that money laundering thing, HSBC was penalized for 1,9 billion and effectively found guilty yet no one from the bank was prosecuted, probably because US didn't want HSBC to lose it charter. However on this specific case, people who have used HSBC to evade taxes have been prosecuted in several countries, including France, doesn't that already prove that HSBC have done the things it is accused off. SeraV (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM has it right. We can't assume just because these cases are all associated with the bank's past wrongdoings that they are necessarily in the wrong here even if the evidence is overwhelming in that way. We cannot make the same assumptions that some in the press commonly do, presumption of guilt before any legal findings have been completed, though we can certainly express the opinions with citation that some believe this implicates the bank in guilt. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make assumptions here, we go what reliable sources are saying. And in this case they are overwhelmingly saying that HSBC has broken laws in multiple countries even. We don't have to pretend that news aren't saying that. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If these sources are only reporters and the like, and not police, investigators, judges, or others in a position of authority to make that determination, then we can only express that as their opinion. The court of public opinion is not an authoratative source. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is factual. Otherwise please make the appropiate changes! The question of guilt is not dealt with in the article. It's not really important whether the business conduct of the bank leads to charges or not for deciding whether the leak is "in the news" or not. Neudabei (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not one for conspiracy theories per se but here we have an editor called "Lux sarl" and an editor called "Neudabei" (registered five days apart) both adamant to post this. Both are relatively new editors and both have edited mainly Luxembourg articles. Just saying.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are simply allegations at this point, and are being denied by some parties involved. I don't see why we should give credence to this report so soon. It would be better to wait for a related event of international significance, such as a conviction or sanctions. Mamyles (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that an anti-business party is making allegations that assume one believes businesses should pay more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay is a joke, and a bad one. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused, this nomination is about actual tax dodgers who have hidden their money in effort not to pay all taxes they are legally obligated to pay and an bank who have been helping them to do that. SeraV (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia is not the place to "right wrongs" - and allegations of criminal acts have even been placed by some editors into BLPs as though the cries were proven facts alas. Collect (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The blurb says his conviction was upheld, meaning he had already been convicted; we usually post this sort of thing when convicted, if I'm not mistaken. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it is this decision that is the "big news moment". His conviction by the Court of Appeal was immediately stayed pending an appeal, meaning that he never went to prison and politics pretty much continued as usual. But this is the end of the road - the highest court. It's now that he's been driven off to gaol; it's now that he's removed from the Malaysian political scene. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not about the crime or the sentence, it's about Malaysian politics. With this sentence, the only effective challenge to the ruling clique for decades is effectively over. Perhaps the blurb needs to be updated to reflect some of that background, though it's hard to see hour it can be done neutrally. GoldenRing (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This wouldn't be legal in the US, given he was acquitted. But the fact that the SUpreme Court has reupheld his conviction speaks volumes, and is of course an ecyclopediclly historical development. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. city of Boston, Massachusetts, sets all-time records for amount of snow on the ground and amount of snow over 30-day and 40-day periods in 17 days. (WCVB)(NBC 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: Described as having "completely revolutionized the way fans watch sports", and "When you talk about the popularity of the NFL, Ed Sabol is one of the seminal figures in the history of the league". Inducted into the Football Hall of Fame, and has other honors. Football would not be the same without the filming techniques he developed. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unopposed as the founder of NFL films, this certainly seems reasonable, although we seem to be all about elections, sports, and terrorism. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this site is plagued with newism. I called my father, who used to listen to Jhon "The Voice of God" Facenda, and asked if Sabol was important His opinion was that he and NFL Films were most important. On the NFL Films basis one can count my comment as a...
The NFL Films approach revolutionized the way sports films were made. Prior to that, they looked like newsreels, complete with music tracks seemingly done by a college marching band. Superior filmmaking techniques, combined with dramatic music and dramatic narration, made for a much improved package. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like a lot of them have died this week. There haven't been a lot of other RD nominations, either. I might add too that Sabol is kind of half-sports half-film/entertainment. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His biography, particularly Ed_Sabol#NFL_Films, seems rather sparse. Sure this may possibly meet minimum update criteria to some, but there's nothing in the article that talks about what he did between 1964 and 1995, a period of 30+ years when surely something worth noting in his article must have occurred. SpencerT♦C19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article possibly meets the bare minimum for posting, but it's pretty bare-bones. The rest of the article is fine, but the section that details what he's most known for is pretty disappointing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to summarize that section as it currently reads: Started company, filmed NFL Championship Game, changed name of company, quote by son, retired, Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And is there no-one better to quote about the work that NFL Films did than his son? Surely some of the obituaries can be used to flesh this out a bit more before it gets posted. BencherliteTalk19:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His son died 3 years ago so probably won't give too many great quotes these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 February 2015
Oppose, and not ready. Reading the article says little about what he did. Also, fails the RD criteria; clearly the Emmy Awards were for a team effort, or they would have awarded them to him, not a company. Extremely narrowly defined field he is supposed to be on top of; in-house sports documentary company co-founder? Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, very sparse article, not in any way showing he is relevant under any of the RD criteria. Not sure why Medeis insists on marking this ready when it clearly inst? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on anything. The article had been tagged, I addressed the tags, there was not a single oppose vote, and the article does indeed meet minimal requirements. What I find really interesting is an IP editor from Britain who had nothing to do with the nomination or anything else current on this thread swooping down anonymously to criticize me personally. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose unless and until some referenced prose shows up in the article. There's no prose describing the ceremony, no prose giving an overview of the major awards. A bunch of tables and charts is not enough for an article to be posted on the main page. We've got about 4 complete sentences in the whole text. If and when that is fixed, consider it ready to post. But not the state it is in right now. --Jayron3215:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that the lede needs improvement to reflect the results, but consider the BAFTA award page below, which was posted without hesitation but which the page is just basically a lead and award tables, the rest of the detail of the ceremony itself can come in time. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Past years only have mentioned the artists, not songs/albums that have won (on the basis that artists are more recognizable than the names of these. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to note that (when I added some bit of a lede to this) that past ceremonies, which have all gone through ITN/C without too much hassle, have several similarly thin pages - in that the bulk is the awards tables and very few details of the ceremony. I will agree these articles can be better, but in terms of ITN/C, this improvement is what we hope come to the table from editors seeing the ITN item and wanting to help out. The core news details (why is this important, who won, etc. ) are the things to make sure are in place. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support No question that this should go to ITN, it is on the list of regular events. I wonder though if the blurb should have info about the nature of the penatly shoot-out or would that make it too long? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITN never mentions the score, margin of victory or the equivalent in sports updates, so if posted this shouldn't mention the penalty shoot-out. BencherliteTalk10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending prose update to either (or both) of the main article about the 2015 competition and the article specifically about the final; if the article about the final is updated first, then that can be the bold link instead. BencherliteTalk14:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Cairo, Egypt, clashes between police and fans of Zamalek SC kill 22 people. Egyptian authorities indefinitely suspend football league matches. (BBC)(AP)
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.
Notwithstanding the poor article, this is stale and would already have been bumped from RD. Stephen
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: Not many WW2 veterans get attention. NYT quote: "[he] reigned as the Navy’s top World War II fighter ace after downing 19 Japanese aircraft and destroying 21 more on the ground in only eight months in 1944" Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does the format of the nomination imply that Nergaal who comments is a sock of Andise1 who gets credit as nominator?
Comment it isn't a case of socking, but rather Nergaal copied and pasted from the thread directly below and forgot to change the nominator (which I have now done). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stale? It says he died on January 29. Also, the article isn't updated, as the prose makes no mention of his death (how, where, etc.). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such policy making RD differ from ITN. General ITN policy is that information that only became public at a later date is acceptable at the date of publication. The Times article dates to Feb 7. Unless we have other major sources that were published on the 29th, there's no problem with this. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article 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.
MildSupport certainly a notable golfer and a remarkably prolific winner. Article is in an okay state, the lead is too short and it is under-referenced but it's vogue to let that slide these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose 3 majors only. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Its minor headline in most news sites. No interest for non-golf fans. Article is lousy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article states "was one of the most prolific tournament winners on the PGA Tour from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s" and "Casper had 51 PGA Tour wins in his career, with his first coming in 1956. This total places him seventh on the all time list." He has also been inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame and has other recognition. Also, very little would be posted to RD if nominations were required to be of interest to people outside a nominated field. What matters for RD is the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to say about the merits of this nomination? If opposing something because we disagree with something else that was posted was a valid oppose, very little would get posted. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking for a point, then Sifford, whose best result was to be tied for 21st in a national competition, should be bumped if we are going to post this otherwise much more worthy candidate. Either that, or an ongoing section for deceased athletes, which might not be a bad idea. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once Sifford was on the wider field, did he face further race prejudice that explains his mediocre record compared to Casper? I simply think it would be absurd to have both players at once. Nor do I need personal education on prejudice, racal or other, I have seen it and experienced it physically. I assume my stand is clear, and don't want to further interrupt the nomination discussion itself. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said I didn't want to comment further, but being told to shut up doesn't help. Casper had twice as many PGA championships after 40 as Sifford had and Sifford's best national tournament score was to tie for 21st place while Casper won three times. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Original nominator has withdrawn, nomination "taken over" (if that makes sense) by 331dot. See history for "authorship" of original blurb wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have provided an altblurb to more accurately reflect how we catalog these (there might be art deals done under the table we have no idea of price). Article has been updated, and based on the sources, the identity of the buyer might not be known for some time. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, to give U.S. readers, and others globally who may be more accustomed to dollar amounts, a figure they can readily understand. Obviously, one has nothing against also giving the £ price. Sca (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the currency should be whatever one the transaction took place with; that said, the BBC article uses dollars first, with pounds in parentheses. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to request such a change. Per MOS:RETAIN, the first variety of English is retained. I wrote it in pound sterling, and it will stay in pound sterling. It is perfectly acceptable to do so. Pound sterling is the third greatest reserve currency, and there is no reason why it cannot be used here. RGloucester — ☎15:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to tell me what I do and do not have the "right" to do? I can make any good faith requests that I wish- which isn't even what I was doing here. I was only suggesting a course of action- and then pointed out that the sources offered (British sources mind you) indeed use dollars. It seems to me that what RS are saying is relevant, even if it isn't what we end up doing. No one is trying to diss pound sterling. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read MOS:RETAIN it says that the first used variety of English is the default, not that it is the only one that can ever be used on that page. If there is consensus to change it, it can be changed. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From now on, every US centric blurb that I feel should be supported should start with "Support vulgar American <event>". –HTD16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know I wasn't exactly referring to this event. TBH I'd prefer Swiss francs as it seems the sale was done in Switzerland(?). So unless the actual sale was done in another currency, I'd go for CHF. –HTD16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To make it truly international, suggest posting all future sale amounts in PBUs (Pizza and Beer Units). Sca (talk)
Support - but without the conversion. AFAIK, the painting was sold in dollars, so that is all we need to mention in the blurb. We can leave conversion to Euros, Pound Sterling and Intergalactic Credits to the article, Mjroots (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When people get annoyed for some reason, it is very uncool to keep poking at them. The currency/ies used is fairly unimportant, and while discussion on which to use is fine, I guess, let's stop mocking/personalizing this, particularly since they are not participating in the discussion anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - and as to note, the current choice appears to be based on the NYTimes' use of USD, as the deal was one reported by experts in the field but not done though a more formal channel like an auction house where we would likely have used the currency the house used. So use the current "USD (GBP)" approach matches with the reliable source here, and not so much an issue of national-centric normalization we would normally try to do. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gloucester names himself after a tyrant but prefers the role of court jester.
It is a WP:NDESC title, though it is used by many RS. Regardless, I'd personally support changing the blurb itself to "Ukrainian crisis". The war is only one subset of the larger crisis, and it doesn't seem to make sense to limit the blurb in this way. RGloucester — ☎01:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That must be why Poroshenko calls it that... Are you familiar with the region, by any chance? Regardless, I still think that the blurb should link to "Ukrainian crisis". The broader crisis is more important than the war alone. RGloucester — ☎01:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The management of Twentieth Century Fox considers granting permission to a group of investors, including some hedge funds, seeking to amend the company's charter and turn their type of voting shares of stock into non-voting shares, a conversion that might raise that type of shares' market price and that also would further concentrate control in the hands of Rupert Murdoch and his family. (Reuters)
A gunman shoots six people, killing four, including several children, in Douglasville, Georgia, ending with the gunman committing suicide. (AP via FOX News)
Although greater than 90% vote in favor of the referendum, Slovak election officials deem the result invalid due to a low 21% voter turnout, far short of the 50% or greater turnout required for the results to be legally binding. (The Slovak Spectator)
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.
Support. Thought about nominating this myself. Meets DC2 for his field; numerous things indicate that. Article seems OK on an initial reading, too.331dot (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inducted into three major halls of fame and awarded the nation's top civilian honor. The article would probably fail a GAR, but is still in acceptable shape for the main page. Teemu08 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This tragedy has gotten a fair amount of coverage from major news outlets, including the BBC [13] and the Wall Street Journal [14], in addition to the sources listed above. Everymorningtalk18:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Presumably this is covered by ongoing; the article itself is inadequate, and might be better of merged into a larger one. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that ISIS is not yet identified as the suspect group here, but if it is the case, it would clearly fall under Ongoing. (Also, I would probably recommended renaming the article to February 2015 Baghdad bombing, given the way that these events have been named in the past due to their frequency) --MASEM (t) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing should simply be expanded to "Jihadist attacks". We really don't need separate threads for some dozen or two countries, from Australia to France to Chechnya to Nigeria, From Jordan to Japan to the US. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, because while there are plenty of other Jihadist attacks going throughout the middle east, the one specific group getting heightened coverage is ISIS in part due to the murders of the various international reporters/aid workers as part of their approach. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't meet the three prose paragraph minimum policy as is, and should still probably sit under ongoing, not be a separate blurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
There are 435 of them currently, and he was a member for only four years. The number of living current or former members of the House is somewhere in the thousands, and you can bet the farm that we aren't going to post them all just because they were in the House. If we were talking about a Speaker or otherwise long-tenured member, I'd probably feel differently. As it stands, the article doesn't suggest he was a particularly powerful or influential politician, and the overwhelming majority of our readers have never heard of this person. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm with you on most of this, and as I say below, I'd vote oppose if he was out of office, but DC#1 says "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death" and that's clearly the case here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)In what other countries, apart from America, would you say all members of one of the two bodies constituting the legislature have "high-ranking office[s] of power"? Or is America a special case? BencherliteTalk18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If mere membership of the US House is a "high-ranking office of power" for ITN-RD purposes, then (I'm a banana) membership of every national legislature is a high-ranking office of power for DC#1, which is certainly not what ITN-RD is for. BencherliteTalk18:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Six UK MPs have died in the present parliament. I would have opposed all of them for RD because simply being an MP is not a "high-ranking office of power" either. BencherliteTalk18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria; Congressman is not a high office of power. Speaker of the House, maybe(if sitting), but not a Congressman. Has only been in office since 2011; no notable legislation passed. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We simply don't report the death of every member of a high-powered parliamentary body simply because they belong to it, unless they are notable for other reasons. Black Kite (talk)18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"High office of power" would be a head of state or head of government, the leader of a Legislature(Speaker of the House, as I stated) or a member of a national legislature with some sort of notable accomplishment. A two-term congressman with no notable legislative achievements or influence is not a "high office of power". 331dot (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that he was a back bencher, but I don't see that as indicative of the office. Congress is, to me, a "high office of power" no matter where one ranks within it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) No, it doesn't. You are simply in the minority (at present) in thinking that "member of the US House of Representatives" = "high-ranking office of power". He had no power himself. At most, he was a low-ranking person of little individual note in a body that has some power within a system of checks and balances. He had no high rank beyond that shared with hundreds of others in the House (and membership of the House isn't all that high in the US order of precedence either) and thousands, nay, tens of thousands world-wide in similar positions. This is not what RD is for. BencherliteTalk18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear I'm in the minority in this particular thread. Individual congresspeople have plenty of power on their own right, even if not passing legislation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From scanning that article quickly, it seems this has been going on for awhile and it wasn't clear that this vote wasn't really a watershed moment in the topic. Busy Moose (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to note that the article needs copy-editing and improved formatting, especially related to naming/organization of sections. It would also help article quality if a suitable image can be found for the article. Beyond quality concerns, I think that this event is notable enough for ITN, and is an interesting subject. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good development, but the problem remains that PAS has not been legalized, merely a law has been found unconstitutional. What we need to wait for is passage of the Nov 2014 Bill, or some other law. This decision has been stayed for an entire year, on expectation of parliamentary action. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the target article should be Carter versus Canada AG, which is the relevant decision. That article is very light on details, and does not argue that assisted suicide has been legalized, it says that one specific law has been overturned. A law setting up regulations and mechanisms would be relevant when passed. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
_1892,_oil_on_canvas,_101_x_77_cm.jpg)
