Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ITN/C)
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.
Shortcut:

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting. For recent deaths, please state why the person is notable enough to post - merely having a Wikipedia article is insufficient.
  • Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


Suggestions[edit]

August 4[edit]


August 3[edit]


[Closed] 23rd World Scout Jamboree[edit]

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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: 23rd World Scout Jamboree
Blurb: The 23rd World Scout Jamboree, the world's largest youth event, is being held in Kirarahama, Yamaguchi, Japan.
Alternative blurb: Naruhito, Crown Prince of Japan, visits the 23rd World Scout Jamboree, being held in Kirarahama, Yamaguchi, Japan.
Alternative blurb II: Israel boycotts the 23rd World Scout Jamboree, being held in Kirarahama, Yamaguchi, Japan.
News source(s): http://newsfirst.lk/english/2015/08/japanworld-scout-jamboree-reaches-fourth-day/105771
Nominator: Kintetsubuffalo (give credit)

Nominator's comments: ongoing international event Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Er, what INTR is this? I'm not seeing anything scouting related there. And generally Oppose, not a significant event. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why would we post a scouting jamboree? Also the article, which is pretty short, says nothing about Israel boycotting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Being the 'world's largest' X doesn't automatically mean it makes ITN. News coverage of this seems limited. I've also removed the ITNR as this is not on the list. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this meeting any ITN criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Scouting is nice, but sorry, this isn't front page headlines or events. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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] Clean Power Plan[edit]

Speedy close for this good faith nom. I am afraid the writing is on the wall. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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: Clean Power Plan
Blurb: Barack Obama announces the Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 32% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.
News source(s): BBC CNN The Guardian
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Described by the Wall Street Journal as "the nation’s first-ever federal limits on carbon emissions from power plants", and FWIW, Obama himself says it's “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against climate change”. Also described as "major" in CNN link above, so this seems significant. However, the article is new and still rather short, so it should be expanded before posting (assuming there's consensus to do so, of course). Everymorning talk 21:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose posting the announcement of a domestic policy 'plan' that will almost certainly be challenged in court or possibly overturned by Congress. It will probably be a long time before this is implemented. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since when do we post domestic policy announcements? Snowclose, one would think. Fgf10 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • DYK Since the article was just created today, it'd be a good fit at DYK (with some expansion). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This should be posted only after there is no remaining ways of shutting it down (i.e.: Supreme Court ruling and such). Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unbinding policy fluff meant for press consumption. Even if it were a law it would have no guarantee of any actual effect four administrations from now. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. It's a policy goal, likely to be aggressively challenged in Congress and the courts. These kinds of announcements are a dime a dozen. - Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The word Plan says it all. Sca (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Think this still would need Congressional approval, and I also believe it is in response to a recent court case where the EPA's previous clean power plant rules were overturned. Not seeing immediate newsworthiness here but DYK is good target. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Greek Stock Market Crash[edit]

Article to update: Athens Exchange
Blurb: The Greek Stock Market suffers the worst crash in its history after being reopened for trading for the first time since June 27, 2015.
News source(s): AP The Telegraph CNN The Street
Nominator: Ad Orientem (give credit)

Article needs updating


Note: As I predicted when we were discussing removing the debt crisis from ongoing, no sooner then we pull it than something big happens. This is the worst crash in the exchanges history. Bank stocks dropped 30% which is the maximum allowed in a single day's trading.

 Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support conditionally The Greek debt crisis was quiet when it was removed from ITN/R. Now, it's loud again. Athens Exchange is not a particularly great looking article at the moment, though. Also, neither source you provided refers to this as a "crash". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is not the greatest article, but I think it is adequately referenced and will serve. Greek government-debt crisis, which I would normally think the better target, unfortunately has issues that probably can't be resolved in a timely manner. I have also added two sources that specifically use the word "crash" though I do believe that commonsense would allow for that adjective when talking about these kinds of one day losses. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the target is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I just rerated it as start-class. It has about 2500 B of prose, and seems to be beyond a stub class article. I do agree though that the quality isn't presently sufficient for posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait – Tomorrow's another day. Sca (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I don't usually question other editors in their vote rationals, and in fairness there are some reasons I could think of that might give an editor some pause on this nomination. But yours is not on the list. I don't see how that oppose rational could not be applied to the vast majority of what we post on here. The word "frivolous" comes to mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Now, now, WP:NPA! A bleak day on the Athens Exchange, no doubt, but stock markets are notoriously volatile. In deference to Addy's sensitivities, though, I'll change my vote to wait – for now. Sca (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't criticizing you. I was criticizing your vote rational. That said, I will admit that I am not altogether happy with the article quality. I just think this is a news item that should be posted on ITN. I would call my own vote as the nom a weak support.
Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem.

August 2[edit]


[Ready] RD: Cilla Black[edit]

Updated article: Cilla Black
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Rcsprinter123 (give credit)
Updater: Yorkshiresky (give credit)

Article updated

 Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 13:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Long and notable career. I came to nominate this myself (would have been my first here). Julius R.S (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on severe article improvement Right now the article is a massive BLP failure and needs serious sourcing work. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose blurb. This is not a world-changing death and we really need to be a lot more careful on where blurbs for RD candidates are used. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support / Support blurb - Icon of the 60s Merseybeat scene, unexpected death, worthy of a blurb. Masem, I'm not seeing any tags in the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • More than half of the paragraphs on her bio and career are unsourced. No, there are no tags but just the lack of a maintenance tag doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. Far too many unreferenced claims for this to be even close to posting. BLP still applies here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when article sufficiently improved. Clearly meets RD criteria. 82.132.228.143 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the article can be completely reliably sourced by midnight tonight, or when she stops being on the front page of BBC News, where she is currently the lead story. There are just too many unsourced quotations and claims. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this does not currently merit posting but on what basis are you imposing a time limit? Usually people have until a nomination drops off a page, especially if there is support for posting on the merits(as there is here) 331dot (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Most deaths stop being news in a day or two, unless it's suspicious circumstances, in which case maybe a week, a member of the Royal family, maybe two, or in the case of Diana, Princess of Wales, I'm not sure the Daily Express has ever stopped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your view, but your initial post seemed like a deadline or ultimatum after which this would no longer be valid for discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember waiting nearly a week to get Francesco Rosi posted at RD. I'd suggest that Cilla, being many times more notable in UK than Rosi, ought to expect to be posted regardless of any time limit. But then I'd also expect far more editors to help in improving the article. All the sources required will be in English for a start, well roughly English, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Calm down, calm down, Martin, I'm sure people will leap in to help update our Cilla's page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure dale be dare sooon. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
So what still needs supporting? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on major improvements to the article Subject is clearly ITNDC material. But as noted above the article has significant issues, mostly in the WP:V area. I have added a ref improve tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a major force within her field of work. definite for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Anyone who had a heart would post this. Sca (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the article is in pretty good shape now (well done Martinevans123) ... marked as Ready. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not Ready Martinevans work has indeed been good, but there are plenty of claims like comparisons with other artists that need citations. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but it was only minor copy editing and stylistic changes. I did not search for any new sources. Thanks for marking up. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
After the diligent work of User:Yorkshiresky, now looks ready. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As one that had issue with the sourcing, the current version does look sufficiently inline-sourced to post now, good work. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Pinging The Rambling Man to post assuming he's happy with cites. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 1[edit]


[closed] Hammer throw world record[edit]

good faith nomination, but trend is obvious μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated article: Anita Włodarczyk
Blurb: Polish athlete Anita Włodarczyk sets a new world record in hammer throw, at 81.08 metres (266.0 ft).
News source(s): IAFF, The Guardian
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Don't know whether we post women's world records, but in this case difference compared to men's is fairly small, at 5,66 m. Brandmeistertalk 08:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We certainly should post women's world records just as we would post men's. They should be treated equally. This was the first women's hammer throw to break the 80 m mark. It beat the previous record by 1.5 m. I think that warrants posting. Neljack (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support The same athlete broke the same record in August 2014. Do we keep posting new blurbs if she keeps breaking her own record? 61.3.105.64 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't think an athlete extending their own record is as notable as a new person doing so, especially in one small track and field event. I'm also not seeing a great deal of coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In the grand scheme of things, even in the record-crazed sports world, this seems rather trivial. Sca (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom records in sport are important. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
ITN is not a sports record ticker. Some are important enough to be posted, but not every one. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we really don't need to set a precedent for publishing a blurb every time a world record is broken, where do you draw the line? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post sports trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I also agree with TRM's observation. We really don't want to set a precedent here. Sports records are set with great frequency and it would be a nightmare trying to decide what gets posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this broke last year's record by ~0.2% if I have my math correct. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh - Sorry, I know what the instructions say, but this is the definition of "meh". --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose More trivial than newsworthy I think, and the article quality doesn't beg for a posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The hammer throw is only marginally important to the general sport audience for a few days every four summers, and even then, pales next to the track events. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

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.

African golden wolf[edit]

Updated article: African golden wolf
Blurb: A new species of wolf, African golden wolf, is discovered by researchers.
Alternative blurb: The first new canine species in 150 years, the African golden wolf is shown to be separate from the Asian Golden Jackal.
News source(s): Cell, National Geographic, CNN
Nominator: Andise1 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: New species of wolf/jackal/dog found. Sources refer to the species as all three, however, The Market Business says they are wolves, not jackals. Andise1 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • They elevated a subspecies to species status based on DNA alone. Abductive (reasoning) 04:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The CNN story states "On closer look, researchers propose new species: African golden wolf". This isn't someone finding a new species in the jungle somewhere, but a reclassification of existing species(based on DNA as Abductive states). 331dot (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. This looks more or less like a renaming or reclassification of something that has long been known to exist. That's too trivial for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if we have an accurate blurb (see atlblurb) specifying exactly what has happened. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just a reclassification. Maybe important for some zoologists, but has no effect on the real world. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

July 31[edit]


[Closed] 2015 Blackbushe Airport crash[edit]

UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED:

--George Ho (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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: 2015 Blackbushe Airport crash
Blurb: A private jet crashes at Blackbushe Airport in Hampshire, United Kingdom, killing all four people on board, three of whom were related to Osama Bin Laden.
Alternative blurb: A private jet crashes at Blackbushe Airport in Hampshire, United Kingdom, killing all four people on board.
News source(s): The Guardian Wall Street Journal BBC (among others)
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Low death toll but the Bin Laden connection seems to add a lot of significance. Also this crash is rather strange because as the Guardian noted, the plane was "fitted with hi-tech safety features" and had previously landed at the same airport many times before without incident. Everymorning talk 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Oppose I'm not seeing anything that rings the ITN bell right now. Bin laden's relatives are not sufficiently notable in their own right to warrant any attention here. Of course this is breaking news so maybe something significant will turn up that makes this a good ITN candidate. For now I'm leaning towards oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Added altblurb to your pleasure. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The body count is too low for ITN. Something that hasn't been reported so far needs to come up for me to be able to support this. Still leaning to oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't see notability other than tabloid sensationalism. --bender235 (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the first disaster at that airfield, but probably even less notable (unless a connection with the CIA is uncovered, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose. "Four people killed in light aircraft crash" is a routine story, and that some of the people killed were members of the (huge) Bin Laden family is of no significance; given the expense of aviation in the UK, a sizeable fraction of private aircraft are going to be carrying someone wealthy and well-known or their families. – iridescent 19:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suspect that in four weeks time this article won't even exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

RD: Howard W. Jones[edit]

Updated article: Howard W. Jones
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator: George Ho (give credit)
Updater: Capitalistroadster (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The American surgeon, who died at age 104, created in vitro fertilization (test tube), resulting in some successful results. May he rest in peace. (EDIT: I could not summarize the notable event well. Anyway, I didn't realize he was the surgeon of David Reimer, a male-born sexually reassigned person.) George Ho (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. No issue I immediately see at article. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support the image doesn't have a fair use rationale for use on this article so it should either be added or the image removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Rambling Man, no image shall obstruct the nomination. By the way, I removed the image and added an infobox image. --George Ho (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I quote from our IVF article "In 1977, Steptoe and Edwards successfully carried out a pioneering conception which resulted in the birth of the world's first baby to be conceived by IVF, Louise Brown on 25 July 1978, in Oldham General Hospital, Greater Manchester, UK". Jones did create the first IVF baby in the US, but the nominators comments as stated at best oversimplify the situation. Fgf10 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Fgf10, I'm not proposing a blurb. I'm proposing his mere name to be shown as part of RD ticker. Of course, thanks for the heads up. George Ho (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Looks highly notable and important within his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even his bio doesn't claim he "created in vitro fertilization", because it's completely untrue. He introduced an already-existing procedure to the United States, which is not to be sniffed at but isn't of any particular significance. (He's not even mentioned in either the in vitro fertilization article or the bio of the man who actually created it.) – iridescent 19:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The Henrietta Lacks aspect is mildly noteworthy, but probably not to the extent of being worthy of RD. SpencerT♦C 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Roddy Piper[edit]

Article: Roddy Piper
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WWE.com, Variety, Esquire, CNN, The Independent, Associated Press
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (give credit)
Updater: Nikki311 (give credit)
Other updaters: Starship.paint (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Called #1 best professional wrestling villain by the WWE; Hall of Fame member since 2005  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Support conditional on significant article improvements. Pro-wrestling is not really my cup of tea but the subject does appear to have a decent claim to importance in the field and probably satisfies ITNDC #2. That said, there is way too much unsourced material in the article at present to link on the Front Page.
  • Conditional support He's a notable name in wrestling and meets ITNDC#2. The sourcing, though, I agree is problematic. Is "wrestling-titles.com", for instance, a reliable source? "411mania.com"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wrestling-titles is as solid as the world has, for that sort of thing. 411Mania, though, is hit and miss. It's a freelance deal, like every news outlet on the Internet has lately. Depends on the author. Ranks high in Google News, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
The page looks much better now than it did two days ago. It'll be nice when this is posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A legendary and long lived figure in pro wrestling. (Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support pending article improvements See sourcing issues above. Just for importance, I think this barely squeaks by given his importance the WWF at its inception. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An important figure in his field. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Myself and a few other editors are currently working on references and other improvements to the article. Nikki311 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - adding mainstream sources for death to the nomination. CNN said The superstar of the 1980s was arguably the top bad guy in professional wrestling history. The Independent said the actor and wrestling legend ... famed for being one of the best heels, or villains, in his profession. starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. They didn't have anything ready when I nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support not only wrestling , but acting too..a very descent actor, not something you can say about any professional wrestler.--Stemoc 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Not many, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most notable wrestlers to ever live.LM2000 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. Notable enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. An absolute legend in the wrestling community and one of the few to speak out against WWE and still return. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article's in good shape. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Headliner for decades, lots of mainstream coverage, etc. It's a pleasant surprise to see a lack of "oppose, wrestling's not notable" votes this time around. -- Scorpion0422 11:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Death has four cited paragraphs now. Refs better, but not perfect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarking sorry, as a BLP this is still under-referenced; just take a look at "American Wrestling Association (1973–1975)" (1 ref for the whole section), "National Wrestling Alliance (1975–1980)" (1 ref for the whole section), "1989–1992" (1 ref for the whole section), first four paras of "Second return to WWE (2005–2015)" (entirely without a single reference). This isn't good enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, if and when the referencing issues are resolved. Roddy Piper was among the top figures in his field and one of relatively few to achieve mainstream fame (i.e., it was common for people who didn't follow professional wrestling to be familiar with him) at a time when that was less common than it is today. However, "reliable enough given the subject" is an unacceptable standard. (Unfortunately, it appears to be one to which many or most of Wikipedia's professional wrestling-related articles have been held.) —David Levy 21:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your comment was completely unnecessary. Professional wrestling articles are among the most highly edited on Wikipedia. That's a bit of a double-edged sword. It means people edit them thousands of times a day; unfortunately, a huge amount of this comes from IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. However, the professional wrestling project is a small group of active, knowledgeable editors with a thorough understanding of verifiability and reliable sources. The "given the subject" comment did not come from a project member, and it would never come from a project member, because they take proper sourcing very seriously. It's particularly troubling to see this unwarranted attitude propagated by an administrator, who should be able to comment on an issue without taking a cheap shot. I certainly wouldn't say that the problem is no more prevalent in professional wrestling articles than elsewhere on Wikipedia. I just flipped through 10 random articles, and I came up with completely unreferenced articles about a Canadian town, ice hockey, commerce, soccer, religion, and a stadium. One article about a biathlon competition had one reference. Another was about a brewery and had 7 references for the 1270 words. That makes 8 out of 10 articles with reference problems. In fact, the only articles that were well-referenced in that random sample were Bathybuccinum clarki and Robert Alaine, two stubs with a combined three sentences. Nobody in the professional wrestling project would look at the state of the Roddy Piper article two days ago and think it was acceptable, but please note that the number of (unique) references has gone from 63 to 110, with the new references being reliable sources, and several of the old unreliable sources have been replaced. Yes, wrestling-titles.com is an unreliable source. Unfortunately, the history for many of those titles is only available in one book, which is out of print and costs a minimum of $130 on Amazon (one project member owns it but is on vacation). I would hope, however, that the project's activity on this article over the past couple of days has helped you see the extent to which you have apparently misunderstood the project. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    I'm only guessing, but I think the crux of what David was trying to suggest was that the article contained and still contains a surfeit of unreferenced claims. That fails WP:V and WP:BLP in this case. I believe David's quote was a direct response to Smerdis of Tlön's claim that: "Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong" which is purely subjective and without foundation. We need WP:RS to support claims within a BLP, especially one that's going to appear on the main page. Please also note, it's never the absolute number of references that defines whether an article meets BLP, it's whether the references provided allow someone to verify the claims made within the BLP, especially those considered controversial. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your response has me baffled. I'm not sure what aspect of my statement you are trying to address. If you look above, you'll see that I stated that the project members and I are familiar with verifiability and reliable sources (which you have conveniently linked for me, despite my previous statement). I was clear that nobody from the project would be fine with saying, "These sources aren't reliable, but they're good enough for the subject matter." People are working on the article. The number of references was obviously just an indicator of how the project has come together to source the article. My problem is not a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but rather with an administrator essentially saying, "The article sucks, but that's par for the course from that project", which is neither civil nor accurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry to have baffled you, to have patronised you, to have borderline insulted you and clearly upset you. To be fair I was just trying to interpret what David had said. He may be able to explain his position in far more elucidating terms. The bottom line is that until this is referenced per BLP then it "isn't good enough". Hope that unbaffles you. I have no dog in the fight other than not putting an article onto the main page with clear and obvious verification issues. Perhaps it'd be better to focus on that instead of on David's comments, if you really want this to be featured in RD? Just a thought. It is also worth pointing out that numerous other admins may well be happy to post this based on the sheer number of references and the innate reliability of the Wrestling Wikiproject, so it may be posted regardless of my personal concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your comments have me baffled, given that I neither mentioned the professional wrestling WikiProject (let alone suggested that Ihcoyc is a participant) nor asserted that similar deficiencies don't exist elsewhere in Wikipedia. It may well be true that "IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy" have inserted most of the problematic material and that the professional wrestling WikiProject works tirelessly to improve the situation. You're defending yourself against accusations that I haven't made. —David Levy 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and Slam! Wrestling (a lot more reputable than it sounds) has a shitload of useful information (scroll to bottom). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • As three days have passed since this nom was opened and this has not yet been posted, close as stale.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant (and ongoing) improvements to references make this a good candidate to post while still fresh. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for prompt posting. Personally, I'm not sure where I would come down on sufficient notability, but the consensus seems to be that this is post-worthy from that point of view. The referencing has now been improved, and is sufficient for posting in my view, especially that this is coming up on "now or never" time as a "recent death." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've tagged those claims which need sourcing. I would hope, in light of recent Arbcom decisions, that they are not "controversial" so the item can be posted as the work done has been impressive. Some other admins may disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment People ridicule me when I talk about an anti-pro wrestling bias here, but this situation has really strengthened my belief. A month or so ago Dusty Rhodes had sufficient support for posting, then sat ignored for days before being rejected (in spite of several appeals from me for someone to post it). In this case, there is overwhelming support and a number of editors have put in some hard work to bring it up to par. Yet it still sits ignored. Meanwhile, a quick browsing of this page shows that things have made ITN and RD with half the support and in half the time. Can we stop with the games and please just post this already? -- Scorpion0422 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Aye. Time marches on. I hope if this happens again for Arn Anderson, we can close it as brainbustered rather than filibustered. There's a proposal on the Wikiproject Talk about sprucing up the big name articles, pre-obituary, so this wasn't completely in vain. And, if you think about it, being on Wikipedia's In The News means less, the heavier something is actually in the news. It's a drop in the bucket, then. The semi-famous like Lynn Anderson, Billy Pierce and Edward Natapei could better use the recognition. And no, that's not an insult. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after some improvements. There's still a section in need of attention - otherwise the sourcing looks pretty thorough. One of the most notable of his sport's last half-century, his influence was felt throughout the sport. Challenger l (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted While not FA quality quite yet, that's not the standard we use for ITN. The article has much improved, and most of the major referencing problems seem to have been addressed. --Jayron32 16:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[closed] India–Bangladesh land swap[edit]

good faith, but terms already announced μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Articles: India–Bangladesh enclaves and Bangladesh–India border
Blurb: India and Bangladesh have swapped control of some 162 small pockets of land on each other's territory.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment didn't we already post this, at least the proposal to do this (on 11 June, according to the talk page)? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as we posted the agreement itself; maybe if it had fallen apart for some reason that would be worth posting. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment yes we posted agreement between India and Bangladesh. But this news is about actual border change.--Jenda H. (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the agreement to make the swap. The consequent technical details of actually executing it isn't as important (unless it leads to a border war or something). SpencerT♦C 07:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above concerns. Duplicate nom/post. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

[Posted] RD: Billy Pierce[edit]

Article: Billy Pierce
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Muboshgu (give credit)
Updater: Connormah (give credit)
Other updaters: Whitesox49 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Among the greatest baseball pitchers of all-time. Seven-time MLB All-Star, won Sporting News' Pitcher of the Year Award twice (only one Cy Young Award was given out those years, and he lost both to pitchers from the other league). Not elected to the Hall of Fame, but he arguably belongs there. Article is GA, so we'll be featuring quality content. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notability is reasonably clear, even to a non MLB reader, and the article is a tip-top high-quality effort, so this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable in the field and article is in good quality. Normally, I would consider the fact that he isn't in the Hall of Fame, but MLB HOF voting is a dramafest approaching ITN/C levels (I kid, I kid) and Pierce could conceivably make the HOF in a future vote. SpencerT♦C 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You are not wrong about the problems with the baseball HOF voting. If anyone who doesn't know about what a farce it has become wants to know more, ping me and I'll show you some stories. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a top pitcher in his day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. His career seems to meet DC2 as very important to his field. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above comments. He appears to meet the applicable guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There might be nit-picky things I see on sourcing (it gets less dense later in the article) but its far from being in poor shape for posting. Importance shown. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have to oppose a baseball player who didn't make the hall of fame which is a lower standard than RD in my opinion. The GA status helps though.--107.107.61.157 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
ITNDC #2 says... The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. That is well below HoF standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
We posted Minnie Miñoso, a teammate of Pierce's, when he died. Like Pierce, Miñoso is on the outside looking in at Cooperstown. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Minnie Miñoso shouldn't have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ebola vaccine[edit]

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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 to update: VSV-EBOV
Blurb: Ebola vaccine VSV-EBOV is shown to be safe and highly effective in the phase three clinical trial "Ebola ça Suffit", which used ring vaccination.
News source(s): [1][2]
Nominator: HLHJ (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: More than ten thousand people have died of ebola in the past year and a half, and nearly twice as many people have survived, but may suffer lifelong aftereffects. It has devastated healthcare systems and economies. Wild reservoirs mean that future outbreaks are a near-certainty. A vaccine is newsworthy.

This is a major step, and it was done in a difficult situation using an unusual method. The Ebola ça Suffit (“Ebola, that's enough”) phase three clinical trial uses ring vaccination(stub): when someone falls ill, adults they might have infected are vaccinated. In the trial, "where rings have been vaccinated, the transmission has stopped" according to Marie-Paule Kieny (an assistant director general of the WHO). This paper (in the Lancet) is a publication of interim results; the trial continues, but the control arm (vaccination delayed by one incubation period) has been dropped.

The authors of the paper describing the study thank the people of Basse-Guinée for their participation. The vaccine was developed by the National Microbiology Laboratory of the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the work done with the support of many organizations including the Wellcome Trust, UK Department of International Development, Guinean Ministry of Health, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, US Department of Defense, Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Health Canada, European Commission and the WHOHLHJ (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose The words "interim analysis," "preliminary," and "vaccine candidate" are sprinkled heavily throughout the paper. A new vaccine for this would definitely be notable, but I recommend waiting until the vaccine has been further tested and approved. Let's not jump the gun here. Mamyles (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with @Mamyles: we're not in a hurry. Better wait and see whether the results uphold, rather than posting "preliminary" findings. --bender235 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait The creation of a viable Ebola vaccine is definitely newsworthy but as the BBC article points out, this is still preliminary results and we usually don't post that. I would expect that something akin to the World Health Org. or the FDA approving the vaccine would be the point of news-worthiness. --MASEM (t) — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, July 31, 2015
  • Support pending improvement. That there is an effective vaccine regimine is big news, if it is not to be reported now, when would it be? The article, however "pleased with the results of the result" is tagged, and a mess. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem. Nergaal (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is far too much reporting of tiny early trials in the media in general, but this is a phase three trial; it's not approved yet, but as far as I know this is the trial that will be used to decide whether to approve it. The WHO seem to think that it's news, and they are normally pretty cautious. I've asked for WP medicine's opinions. I've also fixed up the article a bit. If someone created an article for the trial (which is big and reported upon more than enough to be notable) we could link to that instead. HLHJ (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless/until vaccine is completed and approved for use. No need for a play-by-play of this vaccine's development. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • very strongly oppose - There is a bunch of media hype about this. The results are interim and WP does not communicate hype to the public. The 24 hour news cycle drives hype, but we are an encyclopedia that provides reliable information to the public. So no, and hell no. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post "interim" trials and test results. If/When this gets the OK from the FDA it should be renominated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Redlinks on main page, well, ce n'est pas suffi.... --Jayron32 19:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Very support All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC).
  • Oppose posting results of a trial; when announced it is available for general use, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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.
  • Sorry, edit conflict with the closing; I'm posting this anyway since several people mentioned renomination later: As noted above, the Ebola ça Suffit redlink was in case an article on the trial is written; I've removed it. I've updated the article. I also toned down the blurb after reading a pre-publication review that contradicted part of the published paper (see VSV-EBOV#History on reporting of adverse effects). Since FDA approval will take the better part of a year minimum, it is to be hoped that the epidemic will be over before it gets FDA approval; the continuation of the trial in modified form is broad enough that vaccine may be administered to all the people who would get it were it approved for ring vaccination (whether this is a good idea is another question). When, if ever, do people think this should be nominated? HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest renomination once the vaccine is approved by the FDA or its European counterpart for general use. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
If by "epdidemic will be over" you are referring to the outbreak in some west African countries, use of the vaccine in those countries doesn't depend on approvals in the US or its EU counterpart. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest renomination if the vaccine is approved by regulatory agencies. Jytdog brings up a good point - I would likely also support renomination if an African country decides to vaccinate a significant portion of their populace. Mamyles (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[posted] 2022 Winter Olympics[edit]

Article: 2022 Winter Olympics
Blurb: Beijing is elected by the International Olympic Committee as host city of the 2022 Winter Olympics.
Alternative blurb: During the 128th IOC Session, Beijing is elected as host city of the 2022 Winter Olympics.
News source(s): New York Times NBCSports
Nominator: Hektor (give credit)

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.

Nominator's comments: Host city should be announced at 09:30 UTC on July 31. Only two cities are candidates. Could be a first if Beijing is elected, becoming the only city ever to host Summer and Winter Olympics. Hektor (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Maybe, once it's actually announced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when the announcement is made and articles are updated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably Although given the two choices it seems rather depressing. Apparently the IOC has no interest in barring authoritarian police states from this honor. Hello; 1936 and 2008? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - when host city announced. (probably beijing.. IOC loves awful regimes).--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Isnt this nom made on the wrong day. As the vote is on 31 July? Might be wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The bot will create the July 31 section in a couple of hours. It would be wise to move this proposal there. Hektor (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on confirmation, and I would have no problem if it was Beijing to note it is the first city to host a Winter and Summer olympics, if there's space for such a blurb. Maybe The ICC selects Beijing to host the 2022 Winter Olympics, the first city to host both Winter and Summer events. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Once announced. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once announced. I would use 'selected' rather than 'elected' in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It is Beijing. Hektor (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
By all means, this is an election. IOC members vote. Hektor (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Elections put people into offices. This is neither a person, nor an office being held. This is a group selecting something. Selecting by vote is not the same thing as an election. --Jayron32 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Not all elections put people into offices. The vote takes place, I believe(but could be wrong) by secret ballot. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Then it is your responsibility to find reliable sources and change the text of the Wikipedia article titled Election, the first sentence of which you claim is a blatant lie.(I don't claim so, but you seem to be proposing that it is). And a referendum is a vote and not an election. Not all votes are elections. Just those that put people into offices. --Jayron32 23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not claiming anything is a lie or even that anything needs to be changed on that page; The IOC refers to the selection as an "election". [1] So do most RS: [2] [3] 331dot (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking up the definition on one site, it states "a public vote upon a proposition submitted". [4] 331dot (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This was not a public vote. Still not en election then. --Jayron32 00:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You should speak to the IOC and RS's then and ask them to use different terminology. My point is that a public vote is not necessarily about people. Merriam Webster lists one definition as "the right, power, or privilege of making a choice" which clearly the IOC had. [5] Other similar definitions not involving people are here [6]. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You can be right today. I don't need to win. Congratulations. --Jayron32 01:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to be "right" or "win". It's about using the terminology used by sources, not about what I want. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

July 30[edit]


[Posted to RD] RD: Lynn Anderson[edit]

Updated article: Lynn Anderson
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Article updated


Note: Multi-award winning singer, named Billboard's "Female Artist of the Decade (1970–1980)"

 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Definitely looks notable enough - appears to have been at or near the apex of her field. Once the orange tag and sourcing issues are sorted, looks good to go. 2602:306:31D3:E5C0:11B1:A72B:A65F:E183 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements - Sourcing in the article is hit or miss, but not too far off. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - no one expects to always find "perfect blooms". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, conditional on article improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I used to beg my father for quarters to play her on the juke box. The article is in pretty good shape. I hid a comment about collectable models of her horses and removed non-bluelink items from her selected works. I tagged four items as CN, some of those claims like later cameos can be hidden or deleted as unimportant. I'll be busy for a while though, so not going to be much help for referencing. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You'll find those adorable li'l plastic horses now unstabled and fully supported, (y'all)... ye-hah!! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we need to fix those [citation needed] tags, as right now I'm going through an Arbcom mudfest where one specific admin will delete all unsourced BLP claims on sight. Perhaps we should do that here. THen it would be ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I can count five. But two of those are chart placings?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, so remove those, and we have three. BLP ain't gonna quit, and given Arbcom and "other admins", we're all in danger. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Unable to source her duetting with fiance Mentor Williams on his Drift Away at the 2007 CMA festival. All the rest have now got sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed the unreferenced source as no non-primary sources can verify it. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready a few last claims with no verifiable support removed, no remaining tags. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohammed Omar confirmed dead[edit]

Article: Mohammed Omar
Blurb: The Taliban confirms that its former spiritual leader, Mohammed Omar, died in April 2013.
Alternative blurb: The Taliban confirms that its former leader, Mohammed Omar, died in April 2013.
News source(s): New York Times CNN Christian Science Monitor
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Previous nomination by me yesterday was closed due to lack of confirmation from reliable sources. However, now the Taliban themselves are confirming it, and their doing so has been covered in many reliable sources. Additionally, it appears that the consensus among editors of Omar's article is that he is definitely dead. Everymorning talk 18:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - April 2013 is as stale as stale can be.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most wanted terrorists/war criminals in the world. Even ignoring the problem of the date of death (which realistically precludes RD), I'd support a blurb here on the merits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A major figure in the War on Terror. It's not his fault that it was announced two years after the fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think we've, by now, agreed that contentious reports of death surpass the "staleness" test. This is notable, that's why I'm seeing it on the main BBC News page today. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support He's dead Dave. --109.149.122.191 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with this confirmation. It's not "stale" since this was unknown until now. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment marking as ready with a reservation that "spiritual leader" is a little too POV for a blurb. I would suggest we use something more like "Taliban leader..." as a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It already says he was the supreme commander of the Taliban, which would seem to make "spiritual leader" kind of redundant as well as being nebulous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose again, this is the Taliban confirming. And if you can't confirm the death of your CEO for two years, either your corporation is a sham or a front. Has one single Western intelligence source confirmed this, or did the times get it in an email from a minor Nigerian princeling? Will we be nominating Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead as a followup? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
If the world only just found out that Francisco Franco was dead, I would definitely consider that to be blurb worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - both parties have confirmed the death of one of the most wanted people of recent times. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a (hopefully more neutral) altblurb. Everymorning talk 02:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reiterating from my support from the previous ITNC (before Taliban confirmed). --MASEM (t) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
We still have no reliable source comfirming this, even if they did, that he died two years ago would be stale. Neither a blurb based on facts nor a stale RD is justified. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Significant individual and potential implications on the ongoing insurgency. Modest Genius talk 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment — There're report floating that Jalaluddin Haqqani is dead also. Perhaps we can mingle both in one blurb? --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove ongoing: Greek debt crisis[edit]

Greece has not made news for some time, and no longer seems to be having any impact on the stock markets or commodity trading. Granted, part of the reason for this is due to earnings season having most of the economic impact right now, but if or until Greece threatens default again in the distant future, I see no reason for this to remain as an ongoing blurb on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal it's all gone quiet over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal for now per TRM; we can always readd it should things heat up again. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Makes Sense μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support But you just know that something major will happen over there 24 hrs after we take this off ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's still ongoing, but not really in the news much anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove for now, though I suspect it will come back at some point. This has indeed drifted off the front page and into the business section while the details of the bailout implementation are worked out. Modest Genius talk 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed --Jayron32 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Yakub Memon hanged[edit]

Updated articles: Yakub Memon and 1993 Bombay bombings
Blurb: Yakub Memon, a perpetrator of the 1993 Bombay bombings, is hanged on his 53rd birthday after multiple rejections of mercy petitions.
Alternative blurb: Yakub Memon, a perpetrator of the 1993 Bombay bombings, is hanged.
News source(s): The New York Times The Wall Street Journal The Los Angeles Times Time The Hindu
Nominator: Vensatry (give credit)
Updater: Human3015 (give credit)

Both articles updated


Note: The second article was updated by multiple IPs

Nominator's comments: The candidacy is the brother of Tiger Memon, a prime suspect of the 1993 Mumbai blasts. He is known to have provided financial assistance to his brother in the execution of the blast. Topic seems to be of international interest, as evident from the sources. Vensatry (ping) 05:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This needs some sort of rationale in the nominator's comments other than that it was updated. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Vensatry (ping) 06:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • support - notable and newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. I don't usually support giving attention on ITN to executions, but this was a perpetrator of one of the bloodier terror attacks in history (350+ killed). However the related article on the actual bombings has some issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The bombing and arrest were notable news. This execution, however, is a run-of-the-mill event. Convicted mass murderers are always executed (in countries that allow it). I'm neutral on posting to RD, as a famous and successful figure in the field of terrorism. Mamyles (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually executions in India are extremely rare, even for heinous crimes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, none of the other conspirators were sentenced to death and instead got various lengths of imprisonment. Wer902 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - I'm convinced that the hanging execution would be overemphasized as a blurb. Merely mentioning his name looks fine. George Ho (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
After reading capital punishment in India and Ad Orientem, I'll switch to blurb instead. Yes, the story will be overemphasized. Even with death sentences, executions are rare. This is the first one in India this year (or second). We shall display this obituary and attract readers with this. George Ho (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose what's notable is the crime, not the man. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Then why do we post the results of criminal trials? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Did we not post Ajmal Kasab when he was hanged? Vensatry (ping) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
A blurb implies the news item is notable--it isn't really major news outside India. An RD listing would imply the creep himself were notable. I am happy he's dead, but neither the man nor the hanging will be remembered in the years to come. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Being a creep is not incompatible with notability. The man killed 350+ people. That makes him highly notable, in India and pretty much anywhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a major news outside India? In addition to the listed ones—LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, TimeBBC had covered this. Vensatry (ping) 08:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really notable or interesting. It was inevitable that he would be executed, it has happened and it's barely rippled mainstream news. Gone already. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not a notable enough person for his hanging to feature on MP. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Just re-asking what Ad Orientem had told, "Then why do we post the results of criminal trials?" Vensatry (ping) 08:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb: I don't think RD is appropriate since Memon is only notable because of one incident, which itself is blurb-worthy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 29[edit]


[Closed] Mohammed Omar reported dead[edit]

No consensus to post at this time; wait for confirmation with reliable sources. SpencerT♦C 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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: Mohammed Omar
Blurb: The government of Afghanistan announces that Mohammed Omar, the spiritual leader of the Taliban, died in 2013.
News source(s): BBC Wall Street Journal
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not an RD, because the death is, of course, not recent. Still, it seems significant that the "Spiritual leader" of the Taliban, as well as the former head of state of Afghanistan, has died. Everymorning talk 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait but support if confirmed Given that reports of his death have been issued before, let's give this just a few hours/one news cycle to make sure that it as true as we can assure. This does sound like as-definitive-as-possible report, but both linked sources are cautious to assure true. If affirmed, clearly support. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this can never be confirmed. Abductive (reasoning) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait If/when confirmed this would definitely meet the RD guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure Recent Deaths would be applicable here; I think it would need a regular blurb(given his wanted status and career, so to speak). 331dot (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait; while a government agency stating they believe him to be dead is significant, they haven't really said AFAIK why they think that(and may not). I think waiting for that, or a Tailban admission that he is dead, is prudent here. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

They have claimed his son recognised the body. Obviously its not independently verified, but just updating on the latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.18.106 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment As of right now it appears to be only the Afghan government that is reporting this. To be frank, I am not sure I consider that to be a sufficiently reliable source on this topic. I really think we need to hold off until some confirmation is obtained. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a blurb for "declared dead" is simply out of the question, and "spritual leader" of the taliban is rather stale to consider even notable at RD. It would be like posting minor news from the Watergate era during the Clinton administration; below the fold. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until or if confirmed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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] Obama speaks to African Union[edit]

No consensus to post. Everymorning talk 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated articles: Barack Obama and African Union
Blurb: Barack Obama is the first US president to speak in front of the African Union. He encourages the world to increase trade with the continent, but also criticises the lack of democracy.
Alternative blurb: Barack Obama is the first US president to address the African Union.
News source(s): WSJ BBC White House (among others)
Nominator: Horst-schlaemma (give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This was just yesterday and today really spread across the media, it's highly relevant for the whole African continent and for Obama/US diplomacy in general. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems more appropriate for DYK; calling for more trade and democracy is not significant unless backed up by action. We don't generally post 'firsts' written as trivia. Obama was also the first sitting US President to visit Kenya, but we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I think, in diplomacy, the AU is of a whole different weight compared to Kenya. You may read the linked speech notes by the White House to get a more comprehensive grasp. Sometimes speaking can be much more relevant than acting (or induce the latter), as well. This definitely is of historical scale. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Speaking can indeed be transformative(as Obama himself demonstrated in 2004) but I don't think that's the case here, as he is not expressing a new position but one consistently held by the US government. He also spoke on gay rights in Kenya which was already dismissed by the government there. Speculating that it is transformative is crystal ball-ing unless, as I said, there is hard action. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Excepting the fact that he is the first President to address this particular body, which might rate a sentence in an article somewhere, the speech is entirely run of the mill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's also only the second U.S. president to serve during the African Union's existence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Abductive (reasoning) 18:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this could be a DYK, it should be there. But as for ITN, it would have been a better candidate if the meeting ended with say, a new trade deal or similar firm result. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia goes to DYK. -- Callinus (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

[Closing] RD: Jan Kulczyk[edit]

Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated article: Jan Kulczyk
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Gazeta.pl, Bloomberg, New York Times, Reuters, Financial Times
Nominator: 2A02:582:C55:2A00:A96E:DC91:BCFE:94FF (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Wealthiest person of the country with the 34th biggest population and 23rd largest GDP. Died unexpectedly aged 65. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:A96E:DC91:BCFE:94FF (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Richest man in Poland for the last several years. Note: I've added links to English-language sources. — Kpalion(talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Significance of the subject outside of Poland appears to have been fairly limited. Basically we have a wealthy businessman who died. He was ranked 384 in the list of billionaires, so I'm not seeing his importance in the ranks of the super wealthy. I don't think this nom meets ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Being rich isn't a field. Otherwise, Paris Hilton would make it here some day. I'm not seeing the significance from his business ventures, aside from making him rich. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hilton almost certainly will be posted, not for being rich, but for the whole socialite/"famous for being famous" thing she does. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, she might. I guess it depends on how we define her "field" whenever that happens. Is "famous for being famous" a field? Anyway, it's not the most apt analogy. It seems this individual built his own fortune. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Being "famous" is not a criteria listed under ITNDC. As of this point I don't see anything that would qualify Hilton for an RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe society will view her as one of the "founders" of reality television. Or she'll become one of the greatest DJs of all time. Who knows. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The future is unknowable. Maybe she will become a nun and spend the rest of her life feeding the poor in Africa. For now all I can say is that I don't ever remember a "reality TV star" being accepted for RD and being a famously wealthy libertine is not a "field." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above; just being rich is not significant enough on a worldwide scale. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Seems like just a random rich dude. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; being rich is not a field, and I don't see in what other way he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Random Polish businessman who seems to have contributed to the contents of expensive suits and very little else. Being the richest in a nation does not meet the RD criteria, AFAIK. Challenger l (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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] Ongoing: Turkey–ISIL conflict[edit]

we have two open nominations regarding this, close as duplicate in essence. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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: Turkey–ISIL conflict
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator: George Ho (give credit)

Nominator's comments: After failed nominations on post-bombing events, this article should be most suitable for upcoming events. George Ho (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Why limit it to Turkey? There's a lot more that's going on with battles in Western Syria regarding ISIL recently than Turkey's involvement. If anything we should put ISIL back on ongoing. If not, it would be kind of strange to just put Turkey's involvement on ongoing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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 I think, in diplomacy, the AU is of a whole different weight compared to Kenya. You may read the linked speech notes by the White House to get a more comprehensive grasp. Sometimes speaking can be much more relevant than acting (or induce the latter), as well. This definitely is of historical scale. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Microsoft releases Windows 10[edit]

Closing good faith nom per WP:SNOW. There is no chance that this will be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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: Windows 10
Blurb: Microsoft releases Windows 10, a new operating system offered free to those who own a genuine copy of an eligible edition of Windows 7 or Windows 8.1.
News source(s): Multitudes available, see e.g. The Verge
Nominator: Banedon (give credit)

Nominator's comments: One day late, but since I imagine most of us edit Wikipedia using a computer, and most computers run Windows, that makes the Windows 10 release immediately relevant. Not sure if the fact that it's being offered free is something to mention though: the blurb could simply be "Microsoft releases Windows 10".
  • Oppose. Simple product release; doesn't seem to be anything particularly revolutionary about it. Microsoft can give away its products if they want to; doesn't seem significant. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Wikipedia is not an advertisement. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we usually give 6 hours before closing, but not always, and an advertisement for a long predicted product doesn't merit the wait. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

July 28[edit]


Emergency NATO meeting on Turkey[edit]

Proposed image
Article to update: 2015 NATO emergency meeting and updated article: Operation Martyr Yalçın

Blurb: NATO holds an emergency meeting in Brussels after Turkey launches airstrikes and police raids (pictured) against ISIL and the Kurdistan Workers' Party.
Alternative blurb: After Turkey launches airstrikes and police raids (pictured) against ISIL and the Kurdistan Workers' Party, NATO convenes to hold an emergency meeting in Brussels.
Alternative blurb II: After a suicide bombing in the Turkish district of Suruç, Şanlıurfa, NATO holds an emergency meeting in Brussels.
Alternative blurb III: After a suicide bombing killed 32 people in Suruç, NATO holds an emergency meeting in Brussels while Turkey launches airstrikes against ISIL and Kurdistan Workers Party camps in Iraq.
Alternative blurb IV: NATO allies meet in an emergency meeting at Turkey's request about its ongoing conflicts with the Islamic State and Kurdish rebels (PKK) amid a spike in cross-border regional violence.
News source(s): Business Insider, BBC, VOA, AP

Nominator and updater: Nub Cake (give credit)

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is an alternative nomination to the 'change Turkey blurb' section under July 24. This is because this event has now reached a different magnitude of importance resulting in NATO calling an 'extremely rare' (according to the Business Insider) meeting to discuss recent terror developments in Syria and Northern Iraq. I suggest we leave the Suruç bombing entry on the ITN as it is (its towards the bottom now anyway) and post this as a separate entry entirely. Nub Cake (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


  • support - notable event. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: rather than a blurb, I think it would be better to bring events in Syria and Iraq back into the Ongoing section. Individual developments such as the Turkish airstrikes don't fundamentally change the war(s), but are part of a long-running conflict. Better to cover that via Ongoing than attempt to select individual events for blurbs. Modest Genius talk 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree, the main reason why I thought it would be worthy of ITN is specifically because of the NATO security meeting, which apparently is a rather important and rare event that is all over the news. Nub Cake (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the general blurb - ITN would rather see what the net action is of the meeting than the fact there is going to be one. However, I do generally support the idea of bringing back an ongoing here as the situation develops. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem. It would be better to post the culmination of the meeting, if any notable events come of it. Mamyles (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this meeting was called by Turkey, not called to rein in Turkey. Now, if the outcome is a ground invasion, then that is huge but would require its own article and blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't usually post this kind of stuff until after the event and then only if the results warrant it. Beyond which this is all part of the growing Turkish involvement in the fight against ISIS and their waging war on the Kurds. I am increasingly looking at this situation as a good candidate for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on conclusion of the meeting - this is a major development in the region and a very important development in the Syrian Civil War. Most of the Western jihadist sympathisers that are recruited to ISIL travel to Turkey and cross the border - Turkey is a key player. -- Callinus (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: A very significant event on its own; only the 5th such meeting in NATO's 66-year history (going back to Korean invasion). NATO can require member states to come to the aid of any other member state, such as Turkey, subject to an armed attack (i.e. 9/11). --Light show (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - How is an emergency meeting bigger news than the incidents, which are subjects in meetings? The background has more context than emergency meeting section. I can't allow this to be posted this way. George Ho (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's bigger news because it's unique and potentially a major turning point. The other "incidents," (aka "slaughters,") throughout the region are happening daily. --Light show (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I know it's NATO, an intergovernmental military alliance. Still, I don't see how newsworthy a meeting is aside from incidents in Turkey. Also, I already voted on the other nomination way below (#Change in Turkey). — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talkcontribs) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: if we were to post this, neither blurb seems accurate. The emergency meeting was called because of a suicide attack by IS in Turkey. Yet the proposed blurbs make it seem like the meeting was called because of Turkey's response. Calidum T|C 02:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm still against making the meeting front page news, but here's altblurb2. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
And altblurb3 too. George Ho (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that starting any blurb with "after" some incident, will be misleading and imply a direct cause and effect. NATO wouldn't convene because of any single incident. The phrasing should be more general, ie. "NATO allies met in a rare emergency meeting at Turkey's request about its ongoing conflicts with the Islamic State and Kurdish rebels (PKK) amid a spike in cross-border regional violence." --Light show (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Added altblurb4, but I made some modifications, like dropping "rare" and using present tense. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is an ongoing crisis so if we have an item that's properly updated, let's post that to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Edward Natapei[edit]

Updated article: Edward Natapei
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Radio New Zealand
Nominator: 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1DB8:6C86:4933:9E03 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous politicians from Vanuatu. Died aged 61. Prime minister three times and president once. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1DB8:6C86:4933:9E03 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on notability, since head of state and head of government. Might need a little more work, but to me, it seems OK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - head of state. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article generally in good enough state for posting. Given that for Vanuatu ,the PM holds more power than the President, this is definitely meeting importance as the former leader of a sovereign nation. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a head of state and head of government. Article is acceptable, although I wish it had more details on his first stint as prime minister and his time as president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Clearly meets ITNDC guidelines. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Definitely meets guidelines, but I must agree with Kudzu - could use more details. Challenger l (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Questionable "fame," seeing less than 10 article visits daily. Lead sentence says only, "was a politician from Vanuatu." As the country has about half the population of Oakland, this could set a precedence for adding all politicians anywhere. --Light show (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Light show. I've never liked the school of thought that says prime minister/president = automatic post. This isn't something our readers will be looking for, this is filler. We don't need filler. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If we′re against ethnocentrism, then we have to look forward to adding people from all countries. Really, this is how famous someone from Vanuatu can get, domestically at least. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1CE2:7191:C4B1:20DF (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Light Show. Politician is one thing, world statesman is another. Unless there were some other notable accomplishment than holding office there's no justification for posting this. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Vanuatu is an island (or group of nearby islands). The article doesn't mention greatest accomplishments, even when he was PM for non-consecutive years and an acting President for less than one month. However, as long as his obituary is not a blurb, mentioning merely his name in the Recent deaths list won't hurt much. Also, the article quality is exquisite enough to mention his name. George Ho (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to me that Natapei meets the second death criterion as a person who had a significant impact on, or made a significant contribution to, Vanuatu. Except for Walter Lini, he was probably the most significant and prominent politician Vanuatu has produced, so I find it hard to see how it could be contended that he doesn't meet the criterion. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per IP,Masem and Neljack. -- Shudde talk 06:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

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:

  1. ^ James Gallagher (31 July 2015). "Ebola vaccine is 'potential game-changer'". BBC News Health. UK: BBC. Retrieved 30 July 2015. 
  2. ^ Henao-Restrepo, Ana Maria et al. (31 July 2015). "Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine expressing Ebola surface glycoprotein: interim results from the Guinea ring vaccination cluster-randomised tria" (PDF). The Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61117-5. Retrieved 31 July 2015.