Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

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.


  • 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.


August 31[edit]

Hurricane Fred (2015)[edit]

Updated article: Hurricane Fred (2015)
Blurb: Hurricane Fred makes landfall in the Cape Verde Islands
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Mjroots (give credit)
Updater: Hylian Auree (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Extremely rare for a hurricane to be this far east. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment can you quantify the impact of this, otherwise it's just a DYK ("Did you know that Hurricane Fred was rare?"). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • From the BBC - "No hurricane has ever been recorded further east in the tropical Atlantic." As to the impact, that will become known overnight and tomorrow morning. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that seems to repeat what I just said, it's a DYK. I guess we wait for the outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • DYK material – Meteorologically significant, definitely. ITN worthy, not really. It's a subset of the overall easternmost hurricane record pertaining to the deep tropics; Vince in 2005 still holds the easternmost record. Although the Atlantic hurricane database extends back to 1851, reliable records only start in the 1960s when satellites came into the picture (and even those are currently being reanalyzed to correct errors). There's far to much uncertainty in the database to say whether or not Fred is definitively the first hurricane to strike Cape Verde, and given the nature of well nature, it's very likely that other hurricanes have struck the archipelago in the past. Pending on the scale of impact in the Cape Verde Islands, this could be ITN worthy later on. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nearest quasar is a binary black hole[edit]

Proposed image
Articles to update: Markarian 231 and Binary black hole

Blurb: The source of nearest known quasar, located in galaxy Markarian 231, is reported to be a binary black hole.
Alternative blurb: alt image: File:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 8058 (2008-04-24).jpg
News source(s): CNN The Daily Mail
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A nice change of pace from the disaster-related events filling ITN lately. Somebody will need to do an expansion on the article if this is deemed fit for ITN. Nergaal (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment in good faith, so what? How does this impact us, is it a scientific breakthrough? Does it modify our understanding of our known universe? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Quote: "the findings suggest the binary system may be more common that first thought", and IMO (crystalballing) they might be the best source for detection of gravitational waves. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does actually expand our understanding of the universe. The main issue is that this was announced last week. Support assuming update and move of nomination to proper press date. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RD: Lord Montagu[edit]

Article: Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC The Guardian
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Described as "one of the pioneers of the stately home industry" and as "a leading authority on veteran and vintage cars" by the BBC. Everymorning (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Very weak oppose. Probably equally notable for his role in LGBT legal history, but I'm unconvinced that he's notable enough in any particular area to cross the RD bar. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Home industry and vintage cars? At some point, we have to draw a line on what constitutes a "field". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • No idea what you mean by your first point, but you should know vintage cars are big business, anywhere in the world. Well maybe not so much in developing countries where owning a vintage car would raise some eyebrows...("why have an old car when you can have a new car!?" Ah, first world shit)-- (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I understand that vintage cars are a big business, but I don't see that as important enough for ITN. It's not like he invented the airbag or something like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I am supporting, but I concede that the argument for his meeting ITNDC is not the strongest I have run across. That said I think there is enough (if barely) to give him the nod. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

RD: M. M. Kalburgi[edit]

Article: M. M. Kalburgi
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Scholar, researcher, and renowned figure in Kannada literature and Vachana Sahitya. Recipient of many prestigious awards indicating he was on top of his field. He was shot dead at his residence. (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support: Seems like an interesting person who was important in his field. I would like to see the article expanded with more information about his scholarly works, as right now, it's basically just his early life, controversies, and now murder. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but I agree with Kudzu1 that it should be expanded with more on his career (i.e., why he meets DC#2) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is under-referenced and not suitable for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality for reasons noted above. I would Support for blurb only, but not for RD. Since the manner of his death (murdered in his home) IS itself newsworthy, and needs explanation, this should be a blurb, if it is cleaned up and posted. RD is for routine deaths, where the blurb would be "Dies of being old" or something similar. This was an unexpected and newsworthy death, and needs explanation in the form of a blurb, so IF it is fixed up, it should be a blurb and not RD. --Jayron32 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Wes Craven[edit]

Article: Wes Craven
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): hollywoodreporter VanityFair
Nominator: Callinus (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Director of "Scream" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" -- Callinus (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Was just coming to see if this was nominated yet. Master of horror film. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD – His work/craft speaks for itself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - while he was not one of the most-lauded directors there has ever been - he is famous for his works, and the influence that they carry. Challenger l (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD on article improvements; when I looked, the article itself seemed underreferenced and short. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Notable, and some minor awards. Some big hits. I am not a fan of his work, but concede his RD-worthiness. Agree that article is thin. Jusdafax 02:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - A major horror Hollywood legend. Created the most notable horror movie icons. Death was kinda shocking, but not much. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Article is updated and sourced with the death, subject is widely regarded as a horror movie icon, as seen by supports here. There's one tag, so the article could use some work, but nothing major.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support but article needs improvements - RD here was a no brainer given his success, but while a good chunk of the article is sourced, it really needs more inline sourcing for a BLP (and I am not confortable with the whole section on awards/recognizition lacking sources with that tag.) Pulling it would not be proper but this needs to be fixed ASAP. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull Immediately As in right this minute. How did this get posted with an entire section unsourced(!)? It should be pulled until that is corrected. I Support the nomination in principal, but this article is no where near ready to be linked on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The article has been vastly improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull for now. I guess we all should've been more clear on our supports being conditional of page improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've pulled this. The article isn't terrible, and it will be back up pretty soon, but it's not ready just yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I've added enough sources. Thoughts. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me, thank you. Re-posting. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RD: Nelson Shanks[edit]

Article: Nelson Shanks
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Renowned artist and who painted a large amount of portraits to people of high importance. Art has been put in high class art institutions. Known for Princess Diana, Bill Clinton "blue dress", Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul II portraits. Article in good shape. Died on the 28th but death was announced today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. He does seem to have the awards and recognition to indicate he is notable in his field. There seems to be citations for everything just from a quick read. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely RD material, article is fine for sourcing. I do think this should be listed on the 28th (it's not like a week has past) but that's a trivality. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Article looks good. Notability is clear. Many famous portraits. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based purely on article quality, poor referencing letting it down. The notability, as far as I can tell, is beyond question. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Bump: Temple of Bel[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Temple of Bel

Blurb: After the demolition of the Temple of Baalshamin, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant blows up the ancient Temple of Bel in Palmyra (pictured).
Alternative blurb: The ancient Temples of Bel and Baalshamin in Palmyra are destroyed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
News source(s): USA Today, France24
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Propose to bump the story with the Temple of Baalshamin, although the reported damage so far is partial. Brandmeistertalk 22:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose – Tragic loss of cultural heritage, but the temple is appears less significant than Baalshamin (just an assumption since it's not classified a UNESCO World Heritage site like Baalshamin is) and it's only partially destroyed. We can't really go on reporting all the things ISIL blows up (exaggerating here, but you get my point). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Cyclonebiskit. Not as significant, and posting sets a precedent for all the vandalism to come. Jusdafax 00:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment do you want to propose merging this with Baalshamin? Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL is an OK target that has a range of different things they've destroyed.-- Callinus (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's a merge which in case of posting would be bumped due to more recent date. Brandmeistertalk 07:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Add to the blurb on the Temple of Baalshamin. That's what we did the last time these people started blowing up ancient things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge with the Temple of Baalshamin blurb. Palmyra as a whole is a World Heritage site and this is an important part of it. This temple is/was an almost 2000-year-old, archaeologically very important site, and such a destruction of notable cultural heritage, part of a World Heritage site, is a significant event that would warrant posting. All the vandalism to come can be discussed as it comes along, but there aren't really many more World Heritage sites under ISIS control. --GGT (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge & bump. As I posted in the Baalshamin nomination, this event can serve as an introduction point for readers to eminantly encyclopedic topics (ancient architecture & anthropology), and is something that readers would not get from a standard news source. As such, this plays exactly to the strengths of ITN on Wikipedia. I've added an altblurb for consideration. (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Based on this BBC report, we may have to say "heavily damaged." (And remember, "destroyed" is technically an absolute term denoting total, er, destruction.) Sca (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That report is headlined, "Syria's Palmyra Temple of Bel 'severely damaged' by IS." Sca (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb: Another tragic historical loss, but doesn't need to stand alone on its own line. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per rationale of IP 128 above. μηδείς (talk) 1:25 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Marked ready, article is in good shape and the consensus is to support. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted I fixed up a few issues with the article and combined the blurb, bumping it to the top. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mount McKinley renamed[edit]

Article: Mount McKinley
Blurb: President of the United States Barack Obama announces the renaming of Mount McKinley as Denali.
News source(s): New York Times USA Today
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: The renaming of the tallest mountain in North America that has been known as Mount McKinley since 1896 seems significant. Everymorning (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute could also be linked. The effort to push for the renaming has been ongoing since 1975. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The official renaming of a geographical feature that is not within a region of dispute is a very rare event. I would suggest the blurb explain why (that is, to "return" the mountain to the native people of Alaska, in a way). I initially had started this with weak support (before an ec conflict) but the article Muboshgu is a strong reason to ITN this. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid. Culturally within North America quite significant maybe, but very much appears to be a non-event in the rest of the world at least in terms of news reporting. -- KTC (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • From above: Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I didn't complain that this only relate to a single country. I said that this doesn't seems to have interested or been picked up by the rest of the world. If you're going to complain about my opinion, please at least complain about what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. :) -- KTC (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, it has at least been picked up by Reuters. [1] Everymorning (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
          • That article actually illustrated my point. A link to it is buried at the bottom of the US edition, but nowhere to be seen in the other editions. -- KTC (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
            • The point is that whether it's a "non-event" or not in other parts of the world, that doesn't matter, because if it's a big event where it's a story, that's all that matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – per Masem. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Well known landmark being renamed is very notable and should be posted as a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable and important. Opposer fails to convince me. Jusdafax 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The rest of the world will probably get it tomorrow. The BBC is more interested in "Paid to poo" at the moment. Belle (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pile-on support for a significant change to world maps. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post when the names of things are changed due to war, revolution, regime change, or gained independence. The name Denali has been used for years. This executive order simply coincides with a political junket. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. I'm a bit confused by the objection directly above my comment... that this is a peacetime action should make it even more noteworthy, IMO. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the world's most famous mountains is being renamed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. We don't generally post name changes. I see no reason this one is different. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you give some examples of name changes, nominated or not? Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support seems really obvious. North America's tallest mountain and one of the world's most well-known landmarks is being renamed. Geography textbooks worldwide will have to be rewritten. I don't see how this is not worthy of posting. Banedon (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – all of these oppositions go against WP:ALLORNOTHING in some form. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 06:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Futile post posting oppose - This is just a joke. No evidence of widespread coverage at all, which is not a surprise, because it is just a reasonable high mountain being renamed. No reason for it in the first place, no impact and no interest. Nobody has been able to tell me why this is even in the new locally, let alone why it should be on the main page of a global encyclopaedia. You do wonder why people don't take ITN seriously.... Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If you review the naming dispute article you will understand this has been a political dispute for many years(Ohio politicans are upset while Alaska's are happy); it is receiving much coverage, even internationally to some degree (BBC Irish Times). Textbooks and maps will need to be rewritten; this is a significant change, just as renaming Mount Everest or any highly significant geographical feature would be. Saying that we don't take this seriously is also mildly offensive. You disagreeing with what consensus determines to be posted doesn't mean we aren't serious. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not just "some mountain". It's the tallest mountain in North America. It'd get the same treatment if it was Mt Kilimanjaro, Mt Everest, or Aconcagua. Further, this isn't a global encyclopedia, it's English Wikipedia. You say it's not news locally. Where is local to you? Because I'm about 4500 miles away, and it was front page on Google News. Just because it's not local in NSW Australia or Johannesburg, South Africa, doesn't mean it's not news in other English speaking parts of the world. See the original rebuttal to the first opposition above.
Local news 1 and 2, to go with the countless national and international stories on this. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 09:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
They're just jealous because England doesn't have any mountains. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No, they do have mountains in England, just none whose peaks are nearly as high above sea level as Denali. Much of the North of England is quite rugged, at least as rugged as the Appalachian region of North America (and interestingly, geologically related to it). See Furness Fells for just one example. In England, these areas are called Fells rather than mountain ranges, but they mean the same thing. --Jayron32 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that claiming that opposition to this story is based on some bizarre concept of "mountain envy" is absolutely and tragically pathetic. I'm not sure most of the English-speaking world (outside of America) cares about the nomenclature attributed to this mountain, but it seemed to gather enough attention to get the support required. I will also note that at least one of the opposition is not "English". It would be better not to say anything than say something as crassly absurd in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • support renaming an iconic landmark --Johnsemlak (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

Article: 2015 World Championships in Athletics
Blurb: In athletics, the World Championships conclude in Beijing with Kenya being the most successful country.
Alternative blurb: In athletics, the World Championships conclude in Beijing with Kenya and Jamaica winning the most gold medals.
Nominator: Kiril Simeonovski (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.

Note: The article needs a prose update with general overview of the competition and some specific events.

Nominator's comments: The World Championships in Athletics usually attract the world elite in athletics and its popularity is rapidly growing so that the competition every time receives wider media coverage and broadcast to a record-breaking number of people. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. 1) Already in ITN/R, 2) the fact that Kenya have topped the medals table for the first time and 3) like swimming, a popular school sport as well. Donnie Park (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy ITNR event. Article is almost ready, when a prose results summary is added. Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom/ITNR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the article is simply a bunch of tables. There is no prose beyond the lead, which itself is woeful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality grounds per TRM. Clearly not in shape for posting. I'll also note that ITNR items do not need support on the merits as that is the whole point of the ITNR list; but quality needs to be assessed and is not adequate on this page. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on quality as well. If the prose is expanded decently, I'll be happy to support. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Oliver Sacks[edit]

Article: Oliver Sacks
Blurb: English-born neurologist, professor of neurology at New York University School of Medicine and Columbia University, author of The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and An Anthropologist on Mars.
News source(s): NYT BBC
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Legendary neurologist and certainly top of his field. Article in good enough shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • support RD - definitely top of his field. RD is appropriate here.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support, ideally with a blurb. Sacks is not only well known in his field but also to a much wider audience through books such as The Man Who Mistook his Wife For A Hat and his TED talk. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article is in reasonable shape, a few more citations needed to avoid BLP issues, but otherwise it's sound. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Important person in field but death was not unexpected, and this is not causing a massive pause in the world to reflect on his influence. This is exactly what RD is for. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support, ideally with a blurb. Mentioned in BBC Radio 4 news bulletins today, and in the opening headlines of BBC News at Ten tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. This individual was certainly outstanding in his field. However, I don't think this situation merits a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb: RD is appropriate in this case. Not an unexpected or earthshattering death, although a sad loss. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD / Oppose blurb per most of the above comments. Subject was highly important in his field. But RD is enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

[Closed] RD: Kyle Jean-Baptiste[edit]


The third recent death from the same day will be posted soon. (I might be wrong) I'll create DYK nomination of this soon. --George Ho (talk) 15:35, 31 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: Kyle Jean-Baptiste
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC New York Times CNN The Guardian
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Being the first black actor to play the lead role in Les Miserables on Broadway, as well as the youngest person to do so, combined with the sudden and unexpected nature of his death and the fact that it has been reported on by news outlets all over the world, seems to establish that Jean-Baptiste meets the RD criteria (specifically criterion 2) despite the fact that he did not have an article until after he died. Everymorning (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tragic death and unexpected but as I see it he was only in the role for about 6 weeks and had done nothing else of note. If he'd won or been nominated for some awards then it may be sufficient. Fact that the the article had to be created after his death says it all. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose tragic. DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Yorkshiresky. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article didn't exist before his death, which to me is telling about overall importance to his field: not that much. DYK would be a good forum. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 30 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.

Al Jazeera reporters sentenced to prison[edit]

Article: 2013–15 detention of Al Jazeera journalists by Egypt
Blurb: Three Al Jazeera reporters detained in Egypt are sentenced to prison time for broadcasting "false news".
News source(s): CNN The Guardian ABC
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Note: Article has a yellow tag and could use some cleanup and expansion.

Nominator's comments: Significant development in a long-running and highly controversial criminal case in Egypt involving freedom of the press. Kudzu1 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Question. Has Egypt ever had a free press? (genuinely asking) If not it wouldn't be significant that a country without a free press jails journalists. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and just state that I oppose this as not significant. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial really, and not significant in the big scheme of things as far as I can see, as 331dot has summarised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The sources say that this is a big deal. Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm seeing this on very few front pages; of the 3 sources given only the ABC one has it on the front at all. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Hardly, "the latest turn in a winding 20-month legal battle"... Who's to say this is even the conclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I'm happy to echo the comments from 331dot and The Rambling Man above, but as a news event, this is worth placing on ITN. This event might be trivial in itself (this is unexpected due to the lack of press freedom in Egypt), but it has garnered coverage as an example of the situation in Egypt. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 20:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is only news, and still not huge news at that, if one presumes the POV that the trial was unjustified based on Egyptian law. This is not the place to right great wrongs, and certainly not the place to make a cause celebre out of a presumed lesser wrong. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Had a bunch of quips lined up, but would rather not spout them to avoid confrontation. Anyways, this is not significant in the grand scheme of things. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant news regarding news reporting. Article is tagged and appears to need a bit of attention. Jusdafax 05:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The oppose votes seem to be entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources, however, show that this is important. Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I do find it personally interesting; but it is not significant that a country with a poor press freedom record jails journalists. Nor is it surprising that other journalists would report on it. Now, if a country with press freedom suddenly started jailing journalists for their reporting, yes, that would be significant news. Location matters; and we aren't here to right great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources show only that this is in the news and why, not how important it is. Discussion here is often subjective, weighing what stories are more or less important. Subjective decisions like this do not require, and sometimes are not able to, provide a rational much better than an intuitive WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mamyles (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose While it is admittedly "In the News," I do not think it is significant enough to post. People are convicted on potentially inhumane charges quite often, likely on the order of weekly, and this seems minor in the scheme of world events. Mamyles (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:IDONTLIKEIT just doesnt cut it. This is clearly ITN appropriate as it is a significant news story that effects the free world.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    In your opinion. That this is now about the tenth story down on the World page of the BBC News is somewhat indicative of its true significance and long-lasting impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support High-profile story receiving continued coverage across international reliable news sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It certainly looks like an injustice to me, but we don't right great wrongs. "Middle Eastern/North African court draws international criticism" is hardly unusual. - OldManNeptune 14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

[Posted] RD: Al Arbour[edit]

Article: Al Arbour
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Post, TSN
Nominator: Muboshgu (give credit)

Nominator's comments: "Legendary" hockey coach. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Second most wins all time, coached the Islanders to 4 consecutive Stanley Cups (AFAIK, almost unequaled in that regard), Hockey Hall of Fame member. Article in decent shape with no major omissions or referencing issues. --Jayron32 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significance pretty clear. Article is in decent shape. Teemu08 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - An important figure in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Second all-time in virtually every statistical category.
  • Posted clearly significant, clearly supported, reasonable article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Tropical Storm Erika[edit]

Updated article: Tropical Storm Erika (2015)
Blurb: Flash floods and mudslides produced by Tropical Storm Erika kill at least 20 people across Dominica in the Lesser Antilles.
Alternative blurb: Flash floods and mudslides produced by Tropical Storm Erika kill at least 12 people and leave more than 20 missing across Dominica in the Lesser Antilles.
News source(s): IBT, CBS
Nominator and updater: Cyclonebiskit (give credit)
Other updaters: 12george1 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major disaster, easily one of the worst in recent years for Dominica, unfolding. Death toll has spiked from 4 yesterday to 25 this morning, and it could rise further as others are likely still missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Note – As with any disaster, death toll reports are conflicting. Recent statement (via CNN) by Dominica's Prime Minister states that 12 people are confirmed dead with more than 20 missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait This death toll seems to be mediocre for a tropical storm, let's see how it goes within several hours. Brandmeistertalk 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Not to badger your comment but to provide perspective: Dominica is not often hit this hard by tropical cyclones despite being frequented by them. This is one of their deadliest natural disasters on record, and the worst since Hurricane David in 1979 which struck the island as a Category 4. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and bump when/if needed. The newest story on ITN is a week old. We've got to post something. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; perhaps not the most devastating storm, but enough consequences to post (in terms of casualties deadlier than the other two disasters up right now), especially given the age of everything else up there. C628 (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's starting to show up on Google News and radio reports with increasing frequency, and now that it's over Hispaniola, there are bound to be more deaths. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to ongoing] Ongoing or blurb: European migrant crisis[edit]

Article: European migrant crisis
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Truck in Austria with at least 70 bodies, Hundreds drowned after boat capsizes
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Note: A combined blurb to cover the two or three disasters that have occurred in the past two days, or perhaps an Ongoing listing?

Nominator's comments: At least two capsizes with hundreds dead or missing, and the truck in a lay-by in Austria with at least 70 decomposing bodies... this is notable stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support ongoing. The article is being updated constantly and it is hard to single out one event for a separate blurb. --Tone 08:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. Unfortunately, quite a few stories popping up; the lorry situation was especially crude. Fuebaey (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but the article needs a lot of work - it's a huge topic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing I feel that picking out a blurb for those two specific events is not really fair, considering 1) how many more people have died in this already and how many more will and 2) that while people dying certainly is the worst result of the crisis, but certainly not the only one. Will update the article later with info concerning the specific political situation in Germany (biggest outburst of right-wing violence since the early 90s...). Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. Large crisis with incremental notable events; that's what ongoing is intended for. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing – major political and humanitarian crisis that's been unfolding over a prolonged period. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing – For reasons above. Unfortunately it looks like it's going to be going on for a long time. (Another 200 victims off the Libyan coast yesterday.) Sca (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Posting, since the support is clear. --Tone 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
While this has been posted, a question is on the frequency of these stories. Is this not a continuation of events from roughly a year ago when (as I recall) two boats loaded with migrants capsized in the Med. Sea, prompting the EU to start to take steps to avoid these disasters? If this is a months-long type story where there might be a news bit every week or so, that doesn't seem to be what ongoing is for. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This is to highlight three migrant disasters in the space of two days. Alternatively we could ignore it all entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the disasters, but that are we having these disasters on a frequent enough basis for ongoing, or is a blurb more appropriate to highlight three rather close events all linked to the long-running crisis? --MASEM (t) 18:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The nomination made it clear that we could either go for a combined blurb or Ongoing. Either way it needs to be covered. Or would you rather we remove it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm questioning that this was posted as ongoing, when a blurb seems to make more sense since we're not talking about events that are normally being updated on a daily basis. The news should still be ITN, no question, but as a blurb in my opinion. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so you just mean "Support as blurb", unlike the seven who supported the ongoing posting? The option was there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, it's opposition to the post as ongoing, but support posting as blurb. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you suggest a blurb we could consider? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"In the ongoing European migrant crisis, two separate shipwrecks off Libya kill about 500 migrants, while about 71 migrants are found dead in a truck in Austria." --MASEM (t) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I oppose that and think we should stick with Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb This is both a tragic event in itself (71 people died in a terrible condition) and also representative of a bigger, serious problem of literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people fleeing the wars in the Middle East. I think we should post this, given that even a single shooting/terror attack often get posted despite having less 'weight' than this. HaEr48 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's already out-dated as we have another truck full of migrants in Austria, this time, thankfully, not decomposing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

[Closed] RD: Darryl Dawkins[edit]

Nomination stale due to another most recent death. --George Ho (talk) 13:56, 31 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: Darryl Dawkins
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today The Guardian National Public Radio
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Note: Article has an orange tag. Referencing will need to be added before posting.

Nominator's comments: Flamboyant and eccentric personality in the NBA for many years, credited/blamed for the NBA ordering redesigned basketball rims because of his propensity for shattering the backboard with his powerful slam dunks. Death is receiving international attention. Kudzu1 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a leader in his field, unless smashing backboards is now considered a legitimate field.--WaltCip (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not in the NBA Hall of Fame or widely considered to be a player of that caliber. SpencerT♦C 00:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon update/improvement. Being important to the field doesn't just mean being the greatest player, it can mean influencing the rules of the sport, as was done in this case. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements, definitely a significant persona within the sport of basketball. A person's legacy and impact cannot always be measured by data or measurables, and Dawkins had that sort of impact on the culture of the sport. The attention his death receives is evidence enough that people will be looking for the article at Wikipedia for more information about him. For that reason if the article is improved to minimum quality, it should be posted. --Jayron32 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Induction into a hall of fame is usually the baseline for professional athlete nominations, although that's not a requirement. I guess there's some sort of nebulous "personality of the NBA" thing going on here, but I don't see anything to objectively recommend this: no scoring titles, no league championships, no MVPs, no All-Star selections, pretty much nothing except breaking backboards. Not enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the article is as of yet woefully underreferenced, but he was a household name even to folks like me who have never played nor followed the sport. The article also shows he paled in comparison only to players like Kareem Abdul Jabar. First player drafted out of high school and many other items point to his greatness. Not making the hall of fame by his fifties, and not winning the MVP for championships his team did not win are not reasons to oppose the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The NBA Most Valuable Player Award, which I was referring to, is a regular season accomplishment and isn't contingent on winning a championship. The Finals MVP is a separate award. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, not only does he pale in comparison to Abdul-Jabbar, there is absolutely no comparison to be made. In terms of accomplishments, they are in completely different universes. You may as well compare Mario Mendoza to Hank Aaron. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I would hope we'd post Mendoza's death to ITN. That's actually a great example: a player who wasn't incredibly talented, but who had a profound influence on the sport (Dawkins by forcing the NBA to change its conventions, Mendoza by becoming a statistical byword for borderline hitting). -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose appalling article about an individual who appears to be have been "popular", held in affection by some folks, and not much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose purely on article quality. The main section in unsourced for its first seven paragraphs. There are only 11 sources in total, one of which is a dead link, one a passing mention and half the others are from local sources or are listings. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unlike baseball and ice hockey players, our RD standards for basketball are a lot higher... –HTD 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Are they? I'm not recalling any questionable baseball or hockey players being posted to RD. Do you have any examples? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It's the reverse, actually. In 2013, ITN did not post Sergei Belov, Bill Sharman and Walt Bellamy. I don't remember anyone related to basketball being posted last year, and we didn't post basketball players (we did post Tark and Dean Smith, though) this year. –HTD 20:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article isn't great. I also don't believe retired athletes should be posted to RD unless they are a member of their respective sport's hall of fame or at least won multiple MVPs. Calidum 19:52, 28 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] 60% of psychology studies published in top journals fail reproducibility test[edit]

SNOW closing; no consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 27 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: Psychology and Social science
Blurb: 60% of randomly sampled psychology studies published in top journals have failed a reproducibility test
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: Count Iblis (give credit)

 Count Iblis (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • DYK material.--WaltCip (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No article really targeted aside from the general fields of study, which is probably far too broad for this. Feels like good DYK material, but I don't know if it can be used if Psychology and Social science are the intended articles (unless of course you wish to put forth some monumental editing and get them to GA which would warrant a DYK nom). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really news (granted I work in the field) that science is hard and that study results aren't always replicated in a follow-up study. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose what WaltCip said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. It's not really ITN material. I suggest DYK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and probably doesn't even warrant mentioning on Wikipedia. I would imagine the number of published results that fail reproducibility tests in any experimental science is somewhere around 50-60%; the whole reason we publish results is precisely so other people can see if they can reproduce them. That the NYT engages in sloppy journalism is no reason Wikipedia should. ‑ iridescent 20:19, 27 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.

August 26[edit]

[Posted] RD: Amelia Boynton Robinson[edit]

Article: Amelia Boynton Robinson
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian The Birmingham News ABC News
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Well-known and much-awarded civil rights activist who marched with Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and others at Selma. Article is fairly comprehensive. Kudzu1 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD. I was just on my way to nominate her. Major figure of the American Civil Rights Movement and the Selma to Montgomery Marches. Article looks properly sourced and in decent shape. Challenger l (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support RD A well known leader in the American Civil Rights movement and obvious candidate for RD. The article looks solid and I think is ready for posting subject to community consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to have led a very interesting life, hitching her wgon to two very different stars, MLK & Lyndon LaRouche, but much more to have been on the scene than to have actually accomplished anything herself. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think Medeis's suggestion that she "hitch[ed] her wagon" to Martin Luther King is in any way an accurate reflection of her significant role in the Civil Rights Movement, including in the Selma march. Neljack (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Mayor civil rights figure. Participated in one of the most influential movements in American History. She can be compared to Rosa Parks and Julian Bond. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article quality is excellent, well worth highlighting on main page. --Jayron32 13:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD also per above. Interesting article! Jusdafax 13:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking [ready]; support for RD is overwhelming and the article is of a sufficient standard. Modest Genius talk 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted it could still use some work, there's a tag which could be addressed, but it's nothing too controversial, at least not in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Murder of Alison Parker and Adam Ward[edit]

Closing per WP:SNOW. A tragedy, but just one of many random murders that happen daily, even if it did happen on TV. Smurrayinchester 17:24, 26 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: Murder of Alison Parker and Adam Ward
Blurb: Two American television reporters are shot dead during a live broadcast in Moneta, Virginia.
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (give credit)

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, tragic story and worldwide coverage. The broadcasting of the murders live as well as the social media video make this one unique. But cue the "another shooting in the US", "journalists get killed all the time", etc. comments. Darth nihilus 69 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ignoring that this was "on air", the situation appears to be a disgruntled co-worker choosing to shoot other co-workers in revenge. If we didn't have the fact it was done on air, ITN would write this off as another unfortunate American gun incident and not significant enough to post. The fact that this happened on air is making it a spectacle, but does not change the core story, that a disgruntled employee turned to kill other employees. For the same reason we did not post the France train attack, we should not be posting this as to avoid giving into the spectacle. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst tragic, this would have only been minor news outside the local area had it not been recorded on film. Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tragic? Yes. Notable? Yes. Long lasting impact? No. People are murdered everyday. JOURNALISTS are murdered ALL the time and no one gives a damn about 95% of them.-- (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has some shock factor, and the unusual circumstances may make it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but the event is still a local, domestic crime. We don't typically post murders of otherwise non-notable individuals unless it's mass casualty. Mamyles (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent I just saw the video and it is horrible. Sort of like bodycams on cops, sometimes video can do more than describing the event, and the fact that its on camera both by the station and by the shooter elevates this in a way that everyone above (save the first commenter) seems to be disregarding outright. That said, this is 'Murica, and I don't expect any changes in gun laws from this, since we couldn't when someone massacred an elementary school. So I don't know what to do with this, or anything related to guns any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not terrorism, and if it wasn't on TV I don't even think we would be talking about it. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose A murder doesn't become that much more notable just because it is live on TV. There must be more contributing factors. --Njardarlogar (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pile-on oppose. The idea that dying on TV somehow makes a death more important is ethically repellent. ‑ iridescent 17:22, 26 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.

August 25[edit]

[Closed] RD: Francis Sejersted[edit]

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 26 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: Francis Sejersted
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Los Angeles Times The Local
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Note: Article needs some referencing work.

Nominator's comments: Former chairman of the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize, best known for awarding Nelson Mandela (and F.W. de Klerk). Death has received international attention. Kudzu1 (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Career section needs expansion. It tells a lot of bodies he was a member of without actually describing the work that he did. SpencerT♦C 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Um, perhaps I'm being dim but what death criteria does he meet again? Being a former head of an award committee and dying after a prolonged illness, well into his late 70s, doesn't strike me as significant nor sudden. Fuebaey (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Criteria 2: Being selected as chairmen of the Nobel committee would probably be recognition of importance within his field. There aren't like thousands of those running around... --Jayron32 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
He has been nominated because of his presence on the committee, not because of his field. If we are regarding that as an indication of his importance and not his importance itself, I'm still not clear on how the criteria are met. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, because they just grab any-old-Joe off the street and say "Here, you get to be chairmen of the Nobel Peace Prize committee"... --Jayron32 14:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see how he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Nor do I. Doubtless an interesting person, but no.... Sca (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree that being the chairman of the committee that decides on the awards is not a significant claim of importance for RD. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose His field is "awarding awards". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 26 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.

August 24[edit]

[Closed] RD: Justin Wilson[edit]

No consensus to post as RD or blurb. SpencerT♦C 05:14, 30 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: Justin Wilson (racing driver)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP
Nominator: Palmtree5551 (give credit)

 Palmtree5551 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Regarded as a "highly respected" driver in the series. He's also one of the more popular drivers as well. Certainly a tragic and sad moment here. May he Rest In Peace. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose That NBC News source says "highly respected", not "highly regarded". I don't see any evidence that he meets DC#2 for being highly important in his field, and frankly a race car driver dying from injuries sustained while driving a race car isn't anything that shocking. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Corrected, my apologies. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD / Strong Oppose any blurb There is no evidence indicating a level of importance satisfying ITNDC. He was a professional race car driver. One of many. His death is a tragedy but it doesn't warrant attention here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    His death has already been given attention, VERY PROMINENTLY, by news sources. That you wish those news sources had ignored it is irrelevant. We have a quality article, and his death is being covered a lot. Readers will be looking for it. ITN is not the way in which you get to reshape culture. --Jayron32 10:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The inconsistency here is amazing. Jules Bianchi, who had only been on the Formula One circuit for a year and with no wins under his belt, was prominently given a full blurb about his passing, yet Wilson, a 12-year pro who had seven wins in IndyCar and Champ Car, is being opposed for just an RD? --Tocino 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You have a fair point. All I can say is I opposed that nomination too and still think it was a lapse in our standards. But making a mistake is a poor argument for repeating it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That is inconsistent. I would've opposed Bianchi, though. I looked and saw I didn't comment on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Tocino's argument regarding Bianchi. Wilson was himself a former F1 driver - since that was the obvious bias that led to a nobody like Bianchi getting a full blurb - and unlike Bianchi, Wilson won top level races (in IndyCar), and was a top contender for the CHAMP car titles in the mid 2000s. Resolute 04:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb RD – Per Tocino. If you think Wilson was "just some driver", as some who oppose seem to think, then you are proactively ignoring the mountain of sources indicating otherwise. Even before his death, there were tons of messages of concern and well-wishes from many racing communities, not just IndyCar, and ESPN broke coverage to announce both his injury and his death – two things I don't recall happening with Bianchi just last month who got a blurb with overwhelming support. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 04:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - ex-F1 driver, twice a runner-up for Indycar/Champ Car title. Hundreds of drivers race around the world. He may not have won a major championship but he came pretty damn close twice and accomplished more than most other racers do with his success. I understood the Bianchi blurb to be because he was the first death from an F1 racing accident in 20 years. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I am sorry but Jules Bianchi, which was a mistake, was not a precedent and did not abrogate the guidelines in WP:ITNDC. None of which does this tragic death come even remotely close to satisfying. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Bianchi was not a mistake. His death was the first directly associated with a Formula 1 race for 20 years. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD per Melicans, twice runner-up in a major motor racing championship. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Enough has been said. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not convinced that he was a very significant figure in the field of motor racing. Nor am I persuaded by the comparison with the Bianchi blurb - Formula One is bigger internationally than IndyCar. Neljack (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Former IndyCar and NASCAR champion Tony Stewart put his private jet at the family's disposal before the helicopter even took off from Pocono raceway. He may not have been successful, but to say he wasn't a significant figure in the field of motor racing (less solely just in IndyCar) is simply untrue. As I pointed out earlier, ESPN broke live TV coverage twice; once when he was injured & again when he passed the next day. While I agree that the comparison doesn't matter here, in Bianchi's case, the network only ran an internet story on their much-buried ESPN F1 website and had nothing on TV. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wilson also drove in F1, so I'm confused by the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. He was a significant figure in motorsport, with a long career competing at the top level, and his death is very clearly in the news. 7 deaths in indycar (inc predecessors) in 20 years is hardly indicative of a frequent occurrence. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As per reasons given above. Fgf10 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the comparison to Bianchi is not entirely fair - he was the first F1 driver to die at a GP since two fatalities in 1994, and thus ended a 20-year streak of no deaths in Formula 1. That's notable because the sport was previously known for being deadly, in the 60s and 70s F1 averaged over one death during a race a year (see List of Formula One fatalities). On the other hand, looking at List of Champ Car fatalities, which includes IndyCar and it's previous versions, shows that before this fatality in 2015 there were deaths during races in 2011, 2006, Oct 1999, Sep 1999, Jul 1996 and May 1996. To me that suggests IndyCar is (at least recently) an inherently more dangerous sport and thus is not directly comparable to a death in Formula 1. (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I find this argument compelling. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There has been one IndyCar fatality in a race besides Wilson's since 1999. I'm not entirely sure what you were reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not too knowledgeable about IndyCar, so feel free to correct me. All the information was taken from the linked articles, and whilst you're correct it's also overly pedantic. Before 2015 Dan Wheldon died following an accident at the 2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship during the race and Paul Dana died following an accident at the 2006 Toyota Indy 300, albeit during the final pre-race practice. I purposely didn't include Tony Renna, who died in 2003 whilst in a car but during a closed test. And then there are four other drivers listed as dying on race days (either during practice or the race itself) in the time since the last F1 fatality. It is not at all wrong to say that in the past 20 years 1 F1 driver and 7 IndyCar drivers have died whilst competing in their sport. (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I am not convinced that he was at the top of his field. I have never even heard of him and his death isn't highly covered here. He is not at the same level as Bianchi. His death is only tragic which is bad, but is not notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • How is he not at the same level as Bianchi? Both drove F1 and Wilson had a better average finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support simple. if you posted Bianchi then this should be posted as well. Both non-well-known race car drivers who died and received international press. Period. The amount of opposition is the biggest load of anti-American BS, just as this site often does. The fact that Wilson probably won't even get an RD mention shows English Wikipedia's hypocrisy in what news is posted even more. Darth nihilus 69 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - tragic death (though not unexpected in his risky profession), but not at the top even in the narrowly defined field of auto-racing. ITN is already heavily biased toward sports. -Zanhe (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Zanhe. Were this to go up, it should be as a full blurb. But I don't see it meriting that. Perhaps it's time to consider an "In sports section" below "On this day". I really don't see posting cricket tournaments and sports car crashes with the destruction of antiquities in a major regional war and worldwide market crashes. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am really not seeing this person as a notable or influential member of their field. Challenger l (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - clearly notable enough for inclusion at RD. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Notable why? The whole point of commenting here is to say why he is notable, not just to assert that he's notable, that's already implied in your support vote. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I would observe that most of BabbaQ's comments are like this; they don't really help anyone determine consensus; this isn't a vote. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
331dot if you could let me answer this, it is apparent for anyone with the ability to read an article that his achievements are reason enough for inclusion at RD in my opinion. And I would observe that 331dot always POV push for his opinion at ITN to be followed. As apparent here as well.. geez.. get of the high horse :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that is how you see your posts, but that is not apparent by those reading them, nor is that the role of this page; this page is to discuss the merits of the nomination, and simply saying "it's notable" does not contribute to that. It just looks like a vote. This is not 331dot's In The News so I don't get where the "POV push" claim comes from. This isn't mine nor do I want to push my views on anyone. If you wish to further discuss my conduct here, you can find my talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Re-opening nomination - I feel this needs more discussion, even when vote amount is large. The closer said that featuring the "Jules Bianchi" blurb was a mistake, implying COI (no offense). --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
None taken. I was WP:INVOLVED and viewed the closure as non-controversial since I didn't (and still don't) see any likelihood of gaining consensus. In that circumstance anyone is free to revert a closing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest this be closed by a non-involved editor. It was reopened in good faith but I think it is fairly obvious this particular nomination is going nowhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 28 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] Okanogan Complex wildfire[edit]

Articles: Okanogan Complex fire and 2015 Washington state wildfires
Blurb: The Okanogan Complex wildfire, one of several wildfires in the U.S. state of Washington, becomes the largest in state history after growing to over 250,000 acres (100,000 ha).
Alternative blurb: Over 16 large wildfires across the U.S. state of Washington destroy more than 200 homes and burn 920 square miles (2,400 km2), leading to the declaration of a state of emergency by President Barack Obama.
Alternative blurb II: Over 16 large wildfires across the U.S. state of Washington, including the largest in the state's history, destroy more than 200 homes and burn 920 square miles (2,400 km2).
News source(s): NBC, KOMO-TV/AP, The Guardian, LA Times, The Seattle Times
Nominator: SounderBruce (give credit)

Note: While the article is small, it could be easily expanded over the next few hours. It was only just announced that the wildfire grew to surpass the previous record-holder (the Carlton Complex fire of 2014) this morning.

 SounderBruce 20:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support While it is wildfire season and an issue for many states, this is a major one that they have been having difficulties fighting. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per masem--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a big ongoing story in U.S. Pacific NW, where dozens of wildfires are still burning. (See map.) But since loss of life has been comparatively small – compared to disasters/wars elsewhere – I'm frankly not sure it's ITN material. Sca (talk)
(So happens a close relative of mine just returned – safe & sound! – from two weeks of fighting fire in Wash. & Ore.) Sca (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • As noted there's a couple of fires in the same area that they are worried are going to merge into this and make the situation that much worse. Yes, last I saw there were 90-some reported wildfires in the western US, and these do happen every year, moreso with drought conditions, but this is a very severe one that is not yet over, with only 10% estimated contained. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't usually post records, especially those that change frequently. It's also a record only in a specific area of the US. If this was nominated for the event itself instead of the record (in which case the blurb should probably be changed), I'm not sure it is important enough to warrant a front page item. The target article is also a stub. Isa (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Would it be better to re-write the blurb to cover the entire state's wildfire season? SounderBruce 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. Isa (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support this alone, full support a blurb that covers more of the state's wildfires. I live in Seattle now, and yesterday the forecast was for "smoke". They were not wrong: smoke from the wildfires affected us some distance from where they are occuring. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been smoky here for weeks, but today seems to be clearing at last. OTOH, some of those fires could burn for more weeks. Sca (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just added an alternate blurb. I'm adding some information (and air quality readings) to the season article. SounderBruce 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
How is this wildfire different from others? It seems that a state of emergency was also declared last year. Isa (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
1.3% of the state has burned down. It's no wonder Seattle's weather forecast is "smoke". (Seattle is far from anywhere that isn't like a temperate rainforest and the non-rainforest parts are the opposite direction from where Seattle's prevailing wind comes from. So this isn't common like California). Support alternate. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The article says 11,000 square miles have burned and they've had to ask the lay public to firefight with the firefighters! There's only 66,500 square miles of land in the state! And some is like a desert! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Er, the article says 256,657 acres. If I'm not mistaken, that equates to 400 sq. mi. (640 acres to the square mile.) Washington (state) totals 71,362 sq. mi. Sca (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The other article, 2015 Washington state wildfires, says 11,000 square miles in the lead. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Which makes no sense, since it's a figure for the whole of the United States: The fatalities came as some 29,000 firefighters, including responders from as far away as New Zealand, joined local crews in their struggles against fires that have consumed 11,000 square miles so far. Most of the ravaged land has been in Alaska, but an increase in fires in the Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and California has caused competition for firefighting resources with some requests going unmet.[2]. I've changed the article accordingly. Isa (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Factoids: An area of 11,000 square miles equates approximately to the area of Belgium. Total U.S. area is 3.8 million square miles.
Sca (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Only 3.5 million of which is not water. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I came here specifically to oppose this American nomination.--Droneanddrone (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    I doubt anyone gives a damn about the opinion of someone's scrutiny-evading sock account. Resolute 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (alt. blurb) – Major disaster for the state of Washington and historic in some regards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am pretty much inclined to support on the simple basis of how much smoke the jet stream has shoved up into southern Alberta. Calgary feels like Beijing today with all the haze and health-deteriorating effects it is causing. Article needs major improvement before posting, however. Resolute 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Although I'm a resident of one of the affected states, I remain undecided about this nom. However, please keep in mind that the "disaster" isn't limited to Washington state; it seriously affects Oregon and Idaho as well. (California, from my pt. of view, is a different region and a separate story.) Sca (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The blurbs are about a specific wildfire in the Washington state or the wildfires in that state as a whole. A third blurb could be proposed with the 2015 wildfire season in the United States, but there's no article for this. Isa (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb(s). Season article is more complete, individual fire one is still sparse. Also added a second alt blurb; states of emergency are not entirely uncommon, perhaps the record-breaking fire should be emphasized instead. C628 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reverted closure by User:LukeSurl; posted nominations aren't hard closed to keep the nomination as a workspace for the item and in case of updates; generally only closed in cases of lengthy nonproductive debate after posting. SpencerT♦C 05:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Global stock market selloff[edit]

Article: 2015 stock market selloff
Blurb: Stock markets plummet worldwide, with many indices including the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Shanghai Composite Index and FTSEurofirst 300 Index all recording the biggest falls since the financial crisis of 2007–08.
Alternative blurb: Stock markets sink worldwide, with many indices recording the biggest falls since the financial crisis of 2007–08.
Alternative blurb II: Stock markets plummet worldwide, led by Chinese markets.
Alternative blurb III: Global stock markets undergo major selloffs, with many indices recording the biggest falls since the financial crisis of 2007–08.
News source(s): Guardian, Reuters, Bloomberg
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (give credit)

Note: Needs a lot of work on the article

 Smurrayinchester 14:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once merge discussion is addressed and article is expanded. Obviously a significant selloff and part of a chain of events that started earlier this year (and looks likely to continue, and possibly escalate, over the coming weeks). -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but wait – Huge (and painful!), but we should give NYSE at least half a day's trading before posting. (Maybe a full day; it'll be tough to keep abreast of the action.) Sca (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: We might want to say plummet rather than crash, as crash is such a loaded term in context. (Most of the wonks are calling this a correction.) In title of article, suggest crash be changed to selloff. Sca (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, leaning oppose. This is being predicated on the result of 4 days of trading, and while numbers are swinging wildly, there's nothing to indicate a crash - as Sca points out, that is a very loaded term and nothing showing the markets having crashed, just corrected at a global scale. Even today, a 1000 pt DJ loss has been made up by half and we're not even though the day (as I write this). --MASEM (t) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Changing to Weak support. While I personally think this is just a standard correction, there's enough sources out there that make this news of interest in financial markets with some analysts thinking that while this is not a major situation, it is a test of various nation's economies (like the US's) and a sign of how much of the interconnectiveness of these markets are today. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We'll look like fools if we post this today and the market recovers to pre-selloff levels within the week. Let's wait to see if there's any sign of a long-term trend.--WaltCip (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to wait for a while, but if mkts continue to tank for several days it'd be highly consequential & not to be ignored. (Longer-term this could end up in ongoing.) Sca (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It is interesting to see nearly every world market down 5% today, but as others say, the general volatility of the markets makes it impossible to predict the long term impacts of this. Even the article itself may be premature - i.e.: if markets rally tomorrow. Resolute 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've taken the liberty of renaming the target article and substituting other terms for 'crash'. Hope that meets with consensus. Sca (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing for Global Financial Crisis. This has been building for a while and my guess is that it is not going to end today or tomorrow. It is more than a stock market crash. It is a financial panic centered in China and the emerging markets that is spreading to other parts of the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Not yet – Dow was down 2% at 18:00 (2p NY); let's see where it closes. Sca (talk
  • If posted, the Dow should not be included in the blurb as it was not as badly affected as other international stock markets.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If posted, I suggest altblurb II as the most concise. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because it has affected so many markets around the globe. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Update – So Dow closed down 3.57%, Nasdaq 3.82%. Cudda been worse. Sca (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not about the DOW or the S&P 500. It's the global economy. The emerging markets, especially China, are getting creamed and that is inciting panic globally. This really should be moved to ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Those U.S. market numbers indicate talk of global "free fall" was (or appears to have been) overblown. Plus, NYSE remains the biggest exchange of all. Sca (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Once again this is not a one day event. The S&P has gotten the snot pounded out of it in recent days. Take a look at a 30 day chart. And it has been hugely worse in China, the world's second largest economy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major worldwide event. The scale of the crash is tremendous; the market is in correction mode for the first time in years. Support altblurb, with grammatical error corrected: "... recording their biggest falls ..." Banedon (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Change to Oppose. The problem is, this kind of news should either be posted quickly or not posted at all. We've gone way too long without posting this; it's simply too late. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If futures are correct, DOW, NYSE and S&P will open today by recovering approximately 30% of the recent drop, and other worldwide markets have also recovered some value as of right now. By my cursory reading of the financial press, the terms "correction" and "sell-off" are being used, not "crash". China is a special case, yes, but we can't generalize that across the globe. Being the biggest drop in 7-8 years doesn't make this routine business news any more impactful than being the 7th or 8th largest merger/acquisition in a year. (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait leaning oppose – per above comments by A quick glance at the going-ons also show that China is really the only major market not in recovery or expected to start recovering today. Best to give this a few more days to see how the markets react to China's actions before giving it the go ahead, in my opinion. If there's a desire to push this soon, I'd suggest tightening the focus to mostly (or only) China. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
US Navy 031124-N-9693M-003 Navy sophomore guard David Hooper pulls down a rebound over Belmont senior guard Steve Drabyn during the Midshipmen's home opener at the U.S. Naval Academy.jpg
  • Comment – European markets rebounded in early trading, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet. Sca (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing if an article is written similar to this, summarizing all the key events that took place during the Chinese crisis and their global impact. (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Extremely ongoing and has impacted the world. Very notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support post this already. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Update – DJI — 15,666.44, down 204.91 (1.29%). Sca (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • According to CNN the Dow lost 11% in six days. How can this NOT be front page material? Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if the move itself is not lasting, the volatility of the world markets IS ITN notable. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The article is much too short, itself not much better than a news blurb. The title is a question, as this should be written in hindsight after we know the hurricane has passed. We might still be in its eye. I could see a title like "Black Monday" if the MSM later uses it. I'd wait a few more days. --Light show (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is article quality. This should obviously be posted in theory, but with editorial flourishes like "nail in the coffin" and very inconsistent and non-comprehensive writing I can't get behind posting it as is. Normally "sofixit", but I am also recovering from a two-day medical procedure and working on a Spanish format keyboard. I suspect not attempting large rewrites comes under either the "no using machinery" or the "no serious legal or business decisions" part of my instructions upon discharge today. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, target article is pretty thin. Financial writing is a specialized field. If you watch the wonks, they've got it all in their heads. Tough for a non-pro to cobble together cogently. Sca (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
But a few additions have fleshed out the article a bit. Meanwhile, NY mkts gained in bumpy early trading Wednesday. Sca (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I have taken note of the gains today, if briefly, both in the article and lede. I appreciate your improvements Sca, as material and moral support. As you note, the subject is complex. Jusdafax 01:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is still written from an entirely Dow Jones-centric point of view, with the world-wide crash being treated as a factor in the US stock markets. The lead takes for granted the notion that what matters is the US stock market, while the article title makes no such narrow identification of events. There were even comments from two US presidential candidates in the "reaction" section, which I have removed as undue. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest that should this global market uncertainty continue that we add it to Ongoing. Fluctuations by China are causing ripples worldwide, but right now, it seems that the financial ruin is remaining localised. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Support "global market uncertainty" ongoing as of proper scope and subject. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have restored the deleted "Reactions" section, and have invited participation to expand it for better balance. That topic is more properly discussed on the article talk page. The elephant in the room, so to speak, is the obvious fact that a longtime ITN participant has been working for days to build this article up from a condition charitably described as dubious. An important fact: I have neither nominated it here nor taken a stand on posting it, and I invite collegial participation. I submit that if you feel the article has deficiency, that you help build it up. Again, the place to discuss the details is the article talk page, where the wider community can assist. Rightly or wrongly, I am left with the distinct impression that factors I do not chose to speculate on may be motivating some ITN editor behavior, which arguably should be addressed in a different venue. But, let's work together. Again, I sincerely ask for actual assistance in building the article, not disruptive and dismissive POV pontification and wholesale deletion of sourced sections, Jusdafax 20:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a global story, but in an effort to appear non-U.S.-centric we certainly can't ignore the biggest, most influential market of all. The Dow on Wednesday surged almost 4% while the Nasdaq shot up 4.2%, indicating the dreaded selloff may not be so drastic as doomsayers forecast. Implications for world markets in the near term. Sca (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article is merged with the Chinese devaluation and market crash and made suitably world-focused given its name of 2015 stock market crash. I am not opposing this on political grounds or due to the fact that after an 11% drop in three trading days there was a 4% rebound. Markets dropped world-wide, an article about the crash from the US point of view is like having an article on a comet striking the Pacific from the US view. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your deletion of the section a second time, and again asked for your talk page participation. Given your !vote here, it appears to me you are about to cross a bright line. I call on an uninvolved admin to take note of the issues here, and to take all action needful. Jusdafax 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 3 – I think we've pondered long enough. (Could end up in ongoing.) Sca (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And now the Asian indices are up 2.5%. Are we SURE we want to post this?--WaltCip (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
On Thursday Shanghai closed up 5.3%, Hang Seng up 3.6%. In Europe, markets "climbed Thursday, tracking gains in Asian and U.S. markets," said Market Watch.
Perhaps we should revise our blurb to something like:
Global stock markets suffer major selloffs, followed by days of volatility, then apparent recovery in some markets. (Altblurb 4.)
Sca (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That is the stock market in a nutshell. Volatility. It's pointless to speculate over short-term events.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Saying that the stock market crashed last week isn't speculating, it's reporting news. "The markets are volatile" - which implies that the market crashed one day, surged the next, etc - is also news material. Just take a look around CNN or Bloomberg (for example). Banedon (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The markets have been volatile for the past five years. That the volatility just peaked this week really does not mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention, this was not a stock market crash. A crash is considered a rapid and sustained loss of volume which results in a recession or depression. That has not occurred. The only economic activity that might qualify as a crash is the drop in Chinese equities by 35%, and that story has already been posted this year. In any case, there is nothing noteworthy here to post. "The markets go down, then they go up, then they go down again, then they go up again" does not make for a particularly noteworthy ITN blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"The markets have been volatile for the past five years" - not true. Take a look at the stock chart for VIX, which is the volatility index. There is a definite spike in the past month. Last time the markets were this volatile was in late 2011. Otherwise, major indices worldwide recorded their greatest falls since 2008. Whether or not to call that a crash is a matter of semantics and opinion. Banedon (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 4 - By far the best choice. The market turmoil with wide swings not seen in years has been a real, global event, and may not be over yet. It has been in the headlines for days now, around the world. The target article, which I have given a bit of my time to, can stand further additions and balance, but I can certainly vouch for the sourcing. Jusdafax 14:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose A market "correction" is entirely normal, and the extent of this global fall (~10%) can be expected every 1-2 years. This is the first major correction in five years, but that only makes it less surprising. If something about this is posted, I would prefer it to focus on the Chinese market crash, which is an eye-popping 35%. The 2nd biggest investment market crashing is much bigger news than a global correction. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
U.S. markets gained in early trading Thurs. Sca (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Mamyles, we posted that article July 14. Jusdafax 16:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
European mkts closed 3-plus percent higher. Sca (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
CNBC is stating that the US stock indices have closed out of correction.--WaltCip (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 4 – DJI closed up 2.27%, NASDAQ 2.45% on Thursday. Sca (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
On Friday Shanghai gained 4.8%, while the Hang Seng slid 1%. In Japan the Nikkei 225 rose 3%. European markets were generally flat, although the FTSE managed a 0.9% gain. U.S. markets also were flat. Sca (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is no longer "in the news", especially since equity markets have rallied strongly in recent days. Also for an article that purports to be about a global phenomenon, it focuses too heavily on US stockmarkets. Also 2 of the 3 comments in the "reactions" section are from a US businessman and a US state politician, which again do not reflect a worldwide view of the topic. Stockst (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that the story is cold. If the turmoil returns we can take another look. Frankly, I was surprised at the near-complete lack of assistance I got in working on the article. So be it, suggest we close. Jusdafax 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Kabaddi champions[edit]

Article: 2015 Pro Kabaddi League season
Blurb: U Mumba win the 2015 Pro Kabaddi League defeating Bengaluru Bulls in the final.
News source(s): [3]
Nominator: [[User: (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)| (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)]] [[User_talk: (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)|(give credit)]]

Nominator's comments: Minority sport it is, but there are many other sports on ITNR that are smaller. In a country of 1 billion+ that's no mean feat.
Plus Mumbai winning T20 (posted on ITN a few months ago), semi-finalists in cricket (which ought to be ITNR along with the Welsh/english domestic cricket) and kabaddi only leaves hockey to conquer (arguably the Asian tennis tournament can count too). That is like a city winning \all the big 4 in the USA (of which all 4 are ITNR) (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality. Virtually no prose in the entire article. Needs significant expansion with narrative and explainers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose while I'd love to see such a minority and unusual sport at ITN, I can't support this because the article is inadequate, mainly a whole bunch of tables and scorelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


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 [] 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: