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.

Måns Zelmerlöw

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.

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.


May 27[edit]

[Closed] RD: Mary Ellen Mark[edit]

Duplicate nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updated article: Mary Ellen Mark
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Philadelphia Inquirer The New York Times NPR
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Famous American photojournalist, multiply awarded (George Polk Award, Guggenheim Fellow, Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award first prize, etc.), works exhibited around the world. Kudzu1 (talk) 07:06, 27 May 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] Texas–Oklahoma floods[edit]

Duplicate nomination. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Texas–Oklahoma floods
Blurb: Record-breaking flash floods in Texas and Oklahoma claim at least 15 lives with another 40 people missing.
News source(s): CNN, NY Times, Reuters
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (give credit)

Note: Could use some more fleshing out, especially in regards to the events from last night involving Austin and Houston, specifically.

Nominator's comments: Record breaking floods across Texas and Oklahoma the past several days with many places seeing historic river floods. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I already nominated this below. Everymorning talk 01:37, 27 May 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.

May 26[edit]

Charter Communications buying Time Warner Cable[edit]

Articles: Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable
Blurb: Charter Communications agrees to buy Time Warner Cable in a deal worth $55.1bn.
News source(s): WSJ, NYTimes, BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Massive business deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Potentially so, but Comcast's deal fell through after Charter's did the first time. Announcement due in a few hours (discussion can continue), but regulatory hurdles are not so easy either. (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • You know how this works; we have to wait for this to clear the anti-trust regulations.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Huge transaction '''tAD''' (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - Was the (eventually nonexistent) Comcast - TWC deal announced here at the time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - big news now. If it doesn't go through for some reason, that will be big news again. Despite Walt's comment, we do normally post on announcement (which receives a lot of press), not on regulator approval (which receives little or no press). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Until or if it actually happens, this is nothing but a press release. There's no reason for Wikipedia to give it artificial notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't "give [anything] artificial notability". Wikipedia reflects the notability assigned to things by the real world's reliable sources. And the real world says the announcement is the most notable part of business deals. It is also the point of the process ITN has posted in all recent cases that were posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Except when you all decide it doesn't matter what "the real world" thinks is newsworthy, which happens time after time here. If your premise were true, there would have been no debate about the sentencing of Tsarnaev to death, for example. By your argument, if it's big news now, should be reported now. No more "wait until it happens" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that for something like Tsarnaev there are four points where the news is big: arrest, conviction, sentencing, and enacting of the sentence (and that's excluding appeals, etc.). ITN recognizes that there's many possible points and to avoid having the story come up over and over again, have opted that the conviction is generally the point where the story gains the most usable encyclopedia coverage. In the case of a business deal, such as this one, there's only one assured point: the announcement, and a potential second one if the FCC rejects the deal. While the actual enacting of the deal (if it goes through) is the finality of the situation, that point gets very little coverage. It is the point of the deal's agreement and announcement. With only one such point, this is the right time to post it. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Acknowledging that the FCC will be reviewing this, this is a very large detail and the affirmation that both companies have agreed to going forward is the point where it is in the news, regardless of the chance the FCC will block it. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Highly notable, headline-news business deal. Whether it is approved or denied, it's a huge story. Lots of money here, and lots of implications for the telecommunications sector. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the ultimately-nonexistent Comcast-TWC "merger" was also posted here at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • and by the way. the heading "Charter Communications buying Time Warner Cable" is a false statement. Change it to "Charter Communications proposal to buy Time Warner Cable" for the sake of accuracy and to avoid the Wikipedia rule against crystal ball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely this can't be posted until the FCC approves it? Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Typically this sort of deal is publicized more when it is announced and less when it is actually approved. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Until it's approved, it's nothing but a press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue with such a view of business merger announcements is that it would prevent virtually any business story from being posted to ITN, as the argument given when it is actually approved(and would get less news coverage than when announced) would be that it wasn't in the news. It's news now and should be posted now. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Basically, you folks abhor crystal ball stuff, except when you approve of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing crystal here, it's understanding how the news cycle deals with business mergers. Markets react on the announcement that companies have agreed to merge or be bought out or whatever, but don't react when that actually happens. If the FCC does decide to strike the deal, that'll be news too and the markets will react on that. Crystal balling in these stories would be basing the ITN on the rumor mill on mergers and buyouts. Here, the companies have formally announced the plans, shareholders have agreed, so its not a crystal ball. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And further, you folks call hot news stories "tabloid", unless you approve of them.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots— Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources indicated are the BBC, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. If we're considering their reporting to be "tabloid", pull the other one, it certainly has bells on it. Or alternatively selectively delete posts from editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
For those users who are unable to read, we have a couple of references from American sources such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Funny how those have been overlooked. Perhaps they can just be deleted by some users so they're censored. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have often cited here and have been told the news item in question is "tabloid" material. It's funny how BBC's stories' validity are in proportion to the editors who want to push a story such as this one - which isn't actually a story, it's just a "we hope to..." press release. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a "we hope to" story, this is a "we will unless blocked" story- and if blocked, that would also likely be newsworthy and notable. You seem to be arguing for a de facto prohibition of business stories here. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you've forgotten what happened the last time TWC was intending to be merged with another company. Nothing happened. It fizzled. As may this. However, Charlotte will always be George's sister. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So? Every event can possibly change in the future. What you are proposing is a de facto prohibition of business stories. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable business deal, as stated by others. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the title reflects the reliable sources. Having said that, I've recently seen posts removed with no edit summary and entirely against policy so nothing surprises me about some users here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as absurd. Where is the article on the merger itself? Only on the basis of such an article could we evaluate this. The 'TW-Comcast merger' has an article, and it didn't happen! This merger may happen, but it would create one of the larger (not the largest or second largest) conglomerates. It's being reported as a benefit for internal costs and negotiateing power, not as anything innovative or consumer beneficial. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The current phrasing in the article says "intent to" purchase TWC. That phrasing is far too vague for me to indicate this is a major story. I may intend to do many things, but either don't do it or are prevented from doing it. While I agree that the announcement of the deal is the biggest story, and that waiting for the regulators to tick off boxes is pretty unnewsworthy stuff, I don't see where this is ready yet. Lets follow the story for a little while longer, and when we can say something more definitive than "intent to", we may be able to post this. --Jayron32 21:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that when that point comes, the argument against it will be that it is not in the news, because announcements always get more attention(and have more effects on markets/investors) than the conclusion of the transaction. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32, and suggest the "ready" tag be pulled. Jusdafax 21:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to put it back but I don't think it was proper for a clear opponent of this to remove the Ready tag. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
        • There's nothing improper about that. Supporters frequently add Ready tags, so it's clear that editors are not required to be uninvolved to add or remove them. Anyone can add one if they think the article is ready to be posted, and anyone can remove one if they think it isn't. Neljack (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I guess I would have preferred a new opponent doing so rather than an involved one. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
            • "Ready" to me implies "Ready to be posted if there's consensus". Regardless of consensus, various editors here are saying the article or articles need work. If those problems are resolved, it could again be marked "ready". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
              • My understanding of 'ready' is that it is basically a polite version of 'attention needed'. I have no complaint about any of the admins here, nor with the removal (331 can consider that as a "new" oppose I considered removing the ready myself, but dind't), but if we had even more administratorial attention, our trains might better run on time, for which see the German WP, no joke intended. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support If a $55 billion dollar merger doesn't warrant notice on ITN then it's time to just amend the guidelines to exclude all business related news. And let's be frank here. If it's not posted now it wont be posted at all. FCC approval will get a few paragraphs in the business section of the major papers and if it is even nominated again at ITN it would get buried in a blizzard of oppose votes. These things have always been posted at the announcement which is when it's major news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not a merger until the FCC says it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • As stated, this won't be posted then. The agreement to merge is news now. AdOrientem is quite correct. You haven't denied that your opinion is a de facto prohibiton of business stories. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It might be better to say you agree with his opinion, rather than that he is correct. I still oppose since this will neither change the industry nor create the biggest conglomerate. We've long known TWC has wanted to offload their midlevel management, and that is all this will accomplish. Downsizing and efficiencies, and buyouts. That's really not news. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
AdO is correct that business stories will not be posted if it is prohibited to do so when they are announced; that is a fact, not opinion, because government approvals rarely get the attention and news coverage the announcement gets. Giving the reasons you feel it is not newsworthy is a valid objection(albeit one I don't share) so I don't criticize it. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is "what kind of announcement". The article does not make clear if an offer has been tendered yet, or if the general idea has been floated. There's a big difference between saying "You know, it'd be nice if we bought Time Warner Cable" versus "This, in detail, is how we're going to buy Time Warner Cable". My problem is the language in the target article at Charter_Communications#Acquisition_of_Time_Warner_Cable makes it seem less certain than people here are making this out to be. "Is in the process of acquiring" is different than "Expressed an intent to acquire". Have the shareholders of TWC accepted the offer? Have basic details been worked out? Is this just a random idea or is it a real deal? The text of the article doesn't yet make that clear. It probably should.--Jayron32 04:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a fair point in reviewing the sources - some same that the agreement by both companies is there, some say that Charter has expressed its intent implying the agreement with Time Warner is not done. We should have full clarification before even posting this. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a big deal in terms of size of the companies involved and media interest. It might not be approved by the FCC, but that could take months or years to happen. By that time, it won't actually be in the news. Calidum T|C 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support (edit conflict) business news doesn't get bigger than that, and the FCC will of course investigate it but it still lwarrents posting. If required you could mention the FCC in the blurb but it seems unnecessary. (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue about when to post merger news (at announcement or at government approval) has been previously addressed here:

It seems the strong consensus was that merger announcements should be posted when they announced, not when they are approved. This type of issue will come up for every merger announcement, so if editors have a problem with them being posted at announcement, it should be discussed as an ongoing issue, and not as a one-off issue relating to this particular merger. Stockst (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Who are you, Stockst, prior to this most recent account? Your familiarity with Wikipedia indicates that you've been around a long time, and yet your account is pretty new. --Jayron32 04:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Their edits show a familiarity with business and over a month of activity completely separate from this. We shouldn't bite. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Two US companies of very little or no international significance whatsoever. Totally US-centric. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the largest business mergers ever, recognized companies beyond the U.S., and certainly in the news outside the U.S. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If you mean BBC, that wouldn't count. Each of BBC editions is accessible to only one region. We are viewing the US edition of the BBC website. We can't access to UK edition. Also, I don't think other languages treat the story as one of top stories. By the way, where else? George Ho (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Kenya ambush[edit]

Article: May 2015 Garissa ambush
Blurb: At least 20 Kenyan soldiers are killed in an ambush.
News source(s): BBC Al Jazeera Standard Digital
Nominator: [[User: (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)| (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)]] [[User_talk: (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)|(give credit)]]

Note: Wikipedia won't allow me to create the article. Also, it's more than likely al-Shabaab (or possibly an unknown offshoot, these things keep coming with new factionalised names), but so far only suspected. Further note, this is the second major incident in less than two months there.

Nominator's comments: Soldiers, being armed, are more notable for the not-so-easy high casualty count. Some naxal attack with about the same soldiers was here a few years ago. - (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose lack of article and an item on the BBC is suggesting it's more like one wounded rather than twenty killed. Not notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If you ever bothered to read beyond your prejudged notions you will see 1. I cannot create the article on Wikipedia 2. Beyond your one-track indoctrinated mind, the sources say there was a bomb that wounded and then a rescue mission was ambushed, which is where the casualties came from (read the local source above). (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Personal attacks aside, I know you can't create the article unless you bother registering an account (which is free and will stop people tracking you via your IP address), or you could request its creation at WP:AFC. Either way that's your problem. But I don't actually believe the event itself is even notable enough for an article; perhaps a one-liner in 2015 in Kenya? There still appears to be no reliable source that verifies your blurb. It's not exactly the Garissa University College attack is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; aside from no article to evaluate,(I understand the IP user cannot create one, but that isn't our issue) the Kenyan government is saying none of its officers have been killed(according to the Al-Jaz article) and this is apparently just a claim by a terrorist group. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a news service. ITN blurbs must link to an article. Thems the rules. Create an account so you can create articles or don't. Either is fine with me. But please don't blame other editors for your choices. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment related issue is Garissa University College attack. Could be DUE if the article is created. Would want IP user to create an account then edit the article. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

RD: Mary Ellen Mark[edit]

Article: Mary Ellen Mark
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN NPR Time
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Described by CNN Money as "legendary". Received the "Lifetime Achievement in Photography Award from the George Eastman House as well as the Outstanding Contribution Photography Award from the World Photography Organization." (See Time link.) She also won a World Press Award from World Press Photo. This seems to indicate she was important enough in her field for RD. Everymorning talk 23:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article updates Importance is established. The prose of the article is fine but the allocades section needs to have sources for each aware or link to a blue-linked article where confirmation can be found. (And I was able to find a useful free image to add to the article of her). --MASEM (t) 23:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose that she photographed demonstrations lends her no credit. Let's see one iconic pulitzer winning reason why this should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Subject has numerous awards and was extremely prominent in her field. She more than meets the criteria in ITND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem notability appears clear yet article is very poorly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Lots of awards, published in a lot of noteworthy publications, exhibited worldwide. Notability seems clear. Article looks okay, with maybe a few sources that need to be lined up here and there, but nothing egregious. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - In my view, a fine ITN RD candidate. Notability is clear. Article may need a bit of cleanup, but as Kudzu1 observes, nothing is immediately obvious as a reason not to post this to RD. Jusdafax 07:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    Apart from the incredibly weak sourcing? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Texas–Oklahoma floods[edit]

Article: 2015 Texas–Oklahoma floods
Blurb: Floods in Texas and Oklahoma kill at least 17 people, with dozens injured.
News source(s): Washington Post New York Times Reuters
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: The National Weather Service has described this flooding as "historic" (see WaPo), a state of emergency has been declared, [1] and Obama has promised help to the affected areas (see Reuters link). Death toll is variable from source to source, e.g. the Reuters link above says at least 6 people died, and the Los Angeles Times says it's at least ten. [2] Everymorning talk 18:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose This same storm dropped a tornado that struck a Mexican town over the border with similar casualties. If we are going to report this we cannot omit the Mexico side. (See BBC's take [3]). That said, this is also standard summer storm season - floods and torandoes are to be expected, and this is far from the damage that some torando runs in recent years have caused. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait to see full impact. Right now, while tragic for those affected, it is hard as yet to judge the full impact. --Jayron32 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose parochial story which, among other things, "caused minor damage to a mobile home". Wikipedia is not a repository for localised news of inconveniences to some trailer park folks. The fact we had so much opposition to hundreds dying in India (now over a thousand) would indicate that this is a minor and local news issue in the US, commonplace due to the weather systems there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Front page coverage on, which legitimizes its importance (as discussed earlier). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment of course a support would indicate that a user has not even read the article in question which has an orange-level maintenance tag. But that is hardly surprising as this is stirring up nationalistic feelings. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per @The Rambling Man:. Clearly not very significant coverage outside the United States. ƬheStrikeΣagle 20:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You're saying front page of is not significant? Or is it only significant when you all have pre-decided that it is? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until full impact is known. Right now this seems relatively minor(while historic for the affected area, it isn't nationally I think). If ever posted, it should indeed include information on storm effects in Mexico(like the aforementioned tornado). 331dot (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Potential support per Masem if tied in as one or as related storm systems. We usually have one or two tornado breakouts this time of year. Notable ones kill far more than five. The nomination as posted is minor, but if this becomes a greater complex or can be tied together it would be blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not saying I support this but the total death toll (between the US and Mexico) is over 20. [4] 331dot (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's kinda my point, 331dot}. I think this could be a shoe-in nom if we had an article that tied in all the related events over several days, rather than just the one limited one. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence that this is a really major disaster. The article has really major shortcomings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once further expansion is done. Been doing my best to update and expand this article but I have relatively limited time at the moment. An earlier concern brought up about the Mexico tornado has been addressed by its addition into the article (part of the same overall storm system). Record-breaking floods have occurred/are occurring in many areas of Texas and Oklahoma with more rain on the way. As brought up by the nominator, this is a historic flood event for the region and a deadly one. At least 28 fatalities have been confirmed between Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, with about 40 other people unaccounted for or missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Attention Needed, will someone look at Cyclonebiskits' updation? It's a bit too late for me. μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely not ITN-worthy. But it is getting all the attention as it is American news. Don't think this ever got posted. (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Not really a fair comparison. That article wasn't created until September 2012, roughly two months after the main events of the disaster according to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Those floods lasted for several months, from July up to October. Here's a quote from a news source: "Flooding started in Plateau State in central Nigeria in July, spread through Borno, Cross River, Ebonyi, Nassarawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Katsina and Kebbi states in August, hit Taraba Benue, Niger, Kaduna and Kano in September, before affecting Delta and Bayelsa states in September and October." [5] (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Doesn't appear that anyone bothered to nominate it for ITN. Only one person really edited it while the floods were ongoing. Not everything gets noticed and nominated for ITN appropriately. The 2012 Nigeria floods appear to be a case where there was not enough media coverage that it caught on to people who frequent ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian military base rampage[edit]

Article: 2015 Tunis barracks shooting
Blurb: Soldier opens fire on comrades at Tunisian military base with seven casualties.
News source(s): GNews
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Note: In need of a standalone article.

Nominator's comments: Inconceivable for me too see that this local news gathered so much international coverage throughout. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • We absolutely need an article first. It does not help to nominate when there is no article. (Remember, ITN is about highlight articles of topics that happen to be in the news, not to be a news ticker). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm still searching. If I can't find one, I'll create one (as I did before). By evening EST, we'll have a pretty decent article. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

RD: Bill O'Herlihy[edit]

Article: Bill O'Herlihy
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): GNews
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Well known sports announcer and only a little concern whether he is the top of the field of broadcasting. Known all over for his commentator of FIFA WCs. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality: Article has significant BLP and sourcing problems and will need serious improvement before it is ready to post. Notability, however, is clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability and oppose on quality. Not seeing this individual anywhere on any news outlets I follow, I know it counts for nothing but having watched countless "FIFA WCs" I can testify to that I have never heard this individual commentating, and finally the article, as noted by Kudzu1, is bereft of suitable referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • RTE broadcaster - not that it diminishes his work, but I would not call that "all over". I suppose if top of the field is Irish sportscasting, he is up there somewhere. Mainly as a presenter for these programs, rather than ingame commentary (like the BBC's Des Lynam). Fuebaey (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality alone. He clearly looks to be one of the most well-known broadcasters of his nation - but the sourcing and general article quality (sidebar, image and so on) is sadly lacking. Challenger l (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality alone. Article is far from sufficient. Surely more can be said about a person whose life was this important. If the article were expanded to a reasonable coverage of his life and work, it would be fine for RD. --Jayron32 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert sentenced[edit]

Article: Ehud Olmert
Blurb: Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is sentenced to eight months in prison for fraud and breach of trust.
News source(s): BBC New York Times CNN
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: We posted the jailing of Mohamed Nasheed in March, and there was consensus there, AFAICT, that formed heads of state being jailed is ITN worthy. [6] What is less clear is whether heads of state being sentenced is ITN worthy--the sentence may not be carried out for 45 days, according to CNN. Everymorning talk 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support - I'm iffy on the fact this is pretty much a slap on the wrist in terms of the type of sentence (compared to 20 yrs or the death penalty), but it is also a case against a nation's former head of state. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The President of Israel is head of state, not the PM. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I know what you're getting at but per that article " The position is largely a ceremonial figurehead role,[1] with executive power effectively being exercised by the prime minister. " We're talking a person that formally held that position of power, so this is significant. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree that there is significance here. I studied political science so I can't help pointing out a technicality like that. :) 331dot (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not updated and indicates an appeal will take place immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    Plus the article contains a number of orange maintenance tags which I'm sure the supporters will address, but until then, this should not even be considered for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Nothing when compared with death sentence of Morsi or 20 of Nasheed or some eight (don't recall exactly) of Mubarak. That too in corruption, a less serious issue in comparison of slaughter and espionage and betrayal. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Masem. Probably significant enough to be posted, but it's borderline. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Herald. If recently, former heads of government have been sentenced to death or to likely life terms for charges such as treason, this is very light indeed. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per the reasons given. The conduct, if I read it right, did not have to do with his duties as PM, but it is still notable enough for me to support a little. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Inclined to support, which other stories about this have we posted? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I would prefer something like "Olmert-Talansky affair" to be a separate article. ITN has had stories on former leaders of Egypt and other countries sentenced for crimes. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on how I'm reading this, in the case of the Egyptian trials, they were all connected cases; this appears to be a result of Olmert acting alone - or to the point where he was the one responsible for any crimes. As such, there really is not need for a separate page on this situation. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the article's talk page this matter has not yet been posted. I simply cannot imaging we would not post the jailing of a former EU, Commonwealth, or US head of state. I have hidden a section requiring citations (perhaps it should be removed entirely), the rest of the article looks fine. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the main part of the article is still not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This and the earlier conviction are both up for appeal. When he serves time as former head of government it'll be notable. (This is not his first conviction either). (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - definitely notable enough for ITN inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have you read the article? It's not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once any shortcomings in the article are addressed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment okay, so maintenance tags notwithstanding, apparently a sentence like "Sentencing was set for May, and his lawyers advised he would appeal" means this article is updated? None of you have read this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality of update only. The only update was a single sentence to the lead. Someone should be able to create a paragraph or two in the actual article text. Right now, the Wikipedia article does not contain enough new content to put up on the main page. Also, if we do post this, we should pipelink the section where the new information is added. --Jayron32 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I can understand this as a policy position, Jayron32, but what would the actual update be? He was escorted from his house to prison, and interrogated as to whether he was, or had ever bean, a heemosexual? Would it improve things to post the opinion of various people like Netanyahu regarding the sentence? The effect is another wait vote, although every prior wait vote has said we'll post this when he's convicted, sentenced,... μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be treated the same way as the Charter-TWC thing. It's "news now". If the article needs fixing, the complainants should fix it. But it's factual, which is more than can be said about the latest TWC merger attempt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times has a 20 paragraph article on the topic. Surely we can do better than 20 words. --Jayron32 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

[Ready] Polish presidential election, 2015[edit]

Article: Polish presidential election, 2015
Blurb: Opposition candidate Andrzej Duda is elected as the Polish president.
News source(s): Many
Nominator: The Herald (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.

 -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hah..typo..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - important political news.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Swing back to the conservative-cum-populist Law and Justice Party of the Kaczyński brothers seems ominous for EU champions. Sca (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This does look significant on a number of different levels. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready for main page..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting: Good work on this, everyone. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Before posting, I'd be happy to see some "Reaction" section in the election article. At the moment, it's just the result table. We can do better. --Tone 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Be the change...add it.. (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose article in current state - there is minimal prose in the article and zero prose on the results/reaction. Article does not meet ITN quality standards as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality alone. Amount of prose is very insufficient for a main-page linked article. Substantial prose expansion would be needed to bring this article up to snuff. --Jayron32 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and mark ready, a three paragraph expansion and no tags, ITNR, absurd not to post without any tags to contesr and overwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 24[edit]

[Closed] RD Anne Meara[edit]

No consensus to post. --Tone 16:14, 25 May 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: Anne Meara
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times the Guardian ABC (Australia)
Nominator: Calidum (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Noted actress and comedian who had a 61-year career. She was nominated for four Emmy Awards and won a Writers Guild of America Award and an ObieCalidum T|C 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A long and noteworthy career, but I wouldn't call her top of the field, or suggest that her contributions were that important to her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree there's a general lack of top of the field importance, and also the article is not in great state for posting. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Iffy - Award-winning, and half of a famous comic duo, but inactive in the field for quite a while, in contrast to husband Jerry and son Ben, who have continued to have high visibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose: I like her work, but as Bugs notes she was only half a duo and she hasn't performed as such for a long time. And given that obits had to explain to the young'uns that she is chiefly known to them for being Ben Stiller's mother, I don't think she makes the cut. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Decent article and someone whose death many media outlets have at least noted -- although I would agree she misses the RD criteria for being at the top of her field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note about her being at the "top of her field": the relevant criteria only says "very important in his/her field," which is arguably more inclusive. Whether or not she is most known today for being Ben Stiller's dad is also irrelevant because her fame was established long ago. Calidum T|C 01:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support obvious. One can presumably oppose this if one's to young to remember her career, bur she was huge in her day, and is certainly not just her husband's wife. More than 3-dozen movie credits and 3-dozen tv series, all separate from her standup bit with he husband Jerry Stiller, or her son, Ben Stiller. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This should be a no brainer. Subject was a very prominent person in the entertainment industry and more than meets the qualifications in WP:ITND. I do not understand the oppose votes at all. In what way does this person not meet our standards? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The opposed votes are based on people born since 1990 and outside the Americas. Her filmography alone speaks for itself, outside her relationship to her husband and son. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't fall into that category, and I still think this is not RD material. A large filmograph is not equivalent to importance, as that describes many B-list actors today, doing a bunch of bit parts to work slowly through the ranks. Even Jerry Stiller is hard to qualify as an important figure in television comedy given other names that launched that era. And I really think we should avoid looking at family/married relationships here; it should be the virtue of the person themselves, not who they were related to. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. You don't get four Emmy Award nominations without being important in the entertainment business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure you can. Emmy nominations are just nominations. It suggests there is some potential importance but that's not the only thing. Also, this information is woefully lacking on the article if the Emmys are so important (only one Emmy is mentioned). --MASEM (t) 03:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"The opposed votes are based on people born since 1990 and outside the Americas" Um, I graduated from college in 1990; I was born, raised and have never lived anywhere else but North America. And I stand by the reasoning for my oppose vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No awards, no objective indications that she meets the death criteria. She appears to be exactly the sort of B-list celebrity that we routinely (and correctly) decline to post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BW. No awards meet notability criteria. No a top of the field. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose long career does not equate to being important in the field. The article is reasonably well written but very poorly referenced so is unfit for inclusion in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hasn't won any notable awards, article is in poor shape and does not give any indication of importance. Famous partner and/or children is not relevant. Disclaimer: I wasn't born in the 90s, but I was born outside the US. So clearly, according to Medeis, my vote can be ignored. Structural bias only works one way.... (talk) 12:52, 25 May 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 to ongoing] 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis[edit]

Article: 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Telegraph Reuters US News
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: I think it is quite appropriate to post a story about this crisis as it has been receiving a great deal of news coverage over a sustained period of time, and thousands of migrants have been estimated to be stranded. [7] The reason I am nominating it for ongoing is that there have been a lot of developments in this story (the graves discovered today, the rescuing of migrants by the Myanmar navy, etc.) and it seems like the article has been updated incrementally as dictated at WP:ITNEverymorning talk 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support This is a major story with lots of news coverage but where it would be hard to formulate a blurb based on a specific event, so it fits Ongoing well. Neljack (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Attention being giving to this now, suggests this is the time to post even if, say, more mass graves are discovered. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem, who is right here. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - pretty big Asian issue which has come to prominence recently. Also, an international issue involving multiple countries. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ongoing it is. --Tone 16:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Monaco F1 Grand Prix[edit]

Updated article: 2015 Monaco Grand Prix
Blurb: In motorsport, Nico Rosberg wins the Monaco Grand Prix.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Article updated

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: TBD

Nominator's comments: Winner TBA The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] India heat wave[edit]

Updated article: 2015 India heat wave
Blurb: A heat wave in India kills at least 500 people.
News source(s): Times of India, New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, Time, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Aside from death toll, a temperature record from 1947 was broke in one city, at 48 °C. Brandmeistertalk 12:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notable event, decent enough article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Should this be listed under "ongoing"? The temperatures don't look like they'll come down for a while. (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've read they are expected to fall in June during monsoon season. Brandmeistertalk 12:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This doesn't appear to be getting major coverage (it isn't on the BBC News India page, for example) and, however it is calculated, I don't think it's very clear how significant 335 deaths from heat is in a hot country where 10 million people die each year. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Now on the BBC homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – By standards of the American West, temps reported, while certainly high, aren't unheard of. (Highest temp on record in Phoenix, Ariz. = 122 °F (50 °C); Las Vegas, Nevada = 117 F (47 C); Sacramento, Calif. = 115 (46 C). Sca (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • But it's a dry heat. The first two are in deserts. (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ever driven across AZ & NM in an un-air-conditioned convertible in mid-July? Whew! Shade.png Sca (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No, but I've walked in high sun at 103 and 15% humidity and I don't think anything less than 106 or 107 is too hot. As long as it's that dry. Now on the Persian Gulf it just switches back and forth between wet heat and dry heat all summer (up to 108 and 124 respectively), the seawater is 98, sandstorms can reach several meters visibility, the heat index has reached 172 when scientists thought about 160 was the limit for Earth, people get cabin fever, open their cars with oven mitts and drive with them until the wheel cools down. No place can beat that. (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeSupport Following FormerIP's rationale, 300-some in a country with more than 1 billion people doesn't seem like a significant factor. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    I agree that if you use a simple ratio, this is very small. What ratio would you consider sufficient to post, e.g. 3,000, 300,000? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    There's no hard number, but one has to consider the number relative to the main population and the rate. If this is 300-some deaths from a 1billion+ country over 2 months, that's below the average daily mortality rate there. On the other hand, something like the ebola outbreak took 20,000+ over a few months from a small population over several countries and was potentially threatening more. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, I think we all understand that. So you're looking for, what 10,000 deaths here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    You're asking for a number I refuse to commit to, because it does really depend on the coverage. I'm judging by the coverage of the press, to a degree. Consider the lack of significant details of the articles on the heat wave here - the NYT source is just a paragraph statement from the AP; the Times of India article is more documenting the forecast that the focus on the death toll. I would hope that if the number got into the 1,000 or higher within a single calendar season that the press would take more notice of the matter. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks for your answer, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't actually have a baseline here, so the big question is 335 compared to what? Unfortunately, Google wasn't my friend on this, but I did find that the number of heat related deaths in the US averaged at 618 per year in the decade up to 2010 [8]. We seem to be talking about 6 weeks of Indian heatwave, plus you need to adjust for population, so that 618 would be equivalent to about 285 Indian deaths. That's less that 335, but more than the 230 quoted by the NYT. Comparisons like that can be dangerous. The US definition of "heat-related" may cover a lot more things. There may be a lot of deaths that go completely unrecorded in India. So the comparison doesn't really prove anything, but it may help to illustrate why this isn't necessarily a major international news story. Formerip (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting analysis, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Switching to support per more recent articles, getting the media coverage that would expect if this was a severe threat and not just typical. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not that notable, insignificant coverage. Faizan (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's pretty unusual for 330 people to die in a few weeks and the temperatures have touched a record high in many places. Significant coverage in Indian sources and somewhat less in international ones. Definitely ITN worthy. ƬheStrikeΣagle 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Large death toll. This isn't business as usual, despite the suggestions to the contrary. Neljack (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Seemingly an unusual event for India. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready, scorching heat is devilish in itself when it consumes such a high death toll, even if the country have a population of one trillion or googolplex. Sometimes Masem puts up theories which are too hard to convince conscience. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a standard seasonal weather pattern as you can find similar news stories for every recent year, e.g. Anger rises as India swelters under record heatwave for last year; India Scorched by Blistering Heatwave for 2013; Hundreds die in Indian heatwave for 2010; &c. What's happening is that it's getting hot because summer is coming. The heat then causes the monsoon, which breaks the heatwave. Andrew D. (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment death toll now over 500 with reports in the BBC and The Guardian highlighting that this is hotter and more deadly than the 2010 heatwave. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't a usual occurrence, and lack of coverage by BBC seems illogical to decline this. It isn't a seasonal occurrence, nor do 300+ people die every year of the same reason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support/comment - To say deaths in India don't matter because a lot of people live there is pretty disgusting and also illogical. If the country was divided into several with smaller land chunks and thus less population, one of the new countries would have a much higher "ratio" and the significance would be exactly the same. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Don't stress it. Of course temperatures have been recorded higher in the US, of course there are so many Indians that a few thousand dead don't count for much. That's your systemic bias, right there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: French Open[edit]

Close this one more time, there's no appetite to post every single sporting event to Ongoing, in fact there's an "ongoing" discussion elsewhere regarding the addition of sports ticker. I would take this conversation there if anyone really believes it has any legs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 French Open
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator: [[User: (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)| (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)]] [[User_talk: (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)|(give credit)]]

Nominator's comments: I know this is novel as usually just the final is posted, but it gets regular updates day-by-day and instead of the usual death and destruction that gets ongoing we should consider other ongoings. Tennis has only 4 a year and we can also post the WC in soccer/cricket/rugby that have global following and the Olympics. - (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ongoing was never intended for sports events in progress. The same argument could be made for posting any sport whose playoffs (or even whole season) is in progress and Wikipedia is not a ticker for news or sports. It was intended for events/happenings whose incremental updates might not be enough to post individually but collected together merit posting. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Ongoing was developed with certain major sports events played over weeks/months in mind, specifically the Olympics and the World Cup. I'm not saying this is an appropriate event for ongoing (and I think I would be against it because its an annual thing, not as limited as Olympics/World Cup, and far less of an audience draw), but appropriate sports events can be listed at Ongoing. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, I think the Olympics and World Cup are just about the only events that would qualify(and the Cup was boldly posted; consensus was not very clear). The French Open is an annual event for one sport, very different than the Olympics and Cup(either multisport every four years or long-term event with wide interest every four years) 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Olympics (and probably soccer WC) was posted here. In any case, nothing is set in stone for the sake of it. I wasn't mentioning season long annual events either though. (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Olympics and FIFA WC have a wider audience and appeal. They're held once in four years compared to four grand slams a year (which gives us 16 tennis entries for the same period of 4 years). (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a sports ticker, I believe we once had the FIFA World Cup on there which was boldly posted, but since that's once every four years and attracts a global audience of over a billion, it didn't seem quite so bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I closed this as SNOW, which undoubtedly it was. This is not going to get posted as ongoing, but as a blurb, that too, after June 6th. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Only final results - No need for day-by-day posting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 24 May 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.

Indy 500[edit]

Article: 2015 Indianapolis 500
Blurb: In motorsport, Juan Pablo Montoya wins the 99th Indianapolis 500
News source(s): Indy 500
Nominator: The Herald (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: TBD

Nominator's comments: Indy 500 winner TBA -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Where is the 2015 Monaco Grand Prix? (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a quiz? Monaco. Formerip (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, dad. Zappa24Mati 22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't post each and every Grand Prix. Only the final champion..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't you know that Monaco Grand Prix is also on ITN/R, The Herald? (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Who said otherwise??-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once results are in. High-profile event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose most of the article is in the incorrect tense, waiting for an update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Upon the results' addition. WP:ITN/R candidate. Zappa24Mati 22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, and note that the blurb might also be combined with the Monaco Grand Prix blurb. The account of the race itself needs references, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I've been through and think I've changed the tense as required throughout, but the main bulk of the article is unreferenced, it could easily be original research, and is completely unverifiable. Harrias talk 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Update marked ready. Consensus cleared as the article is fixed. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What does this mean? The article is clearly not fixed, as the entire "Race" section is completely unreferenced, while the practice and qualifying sections also have few if any inline citations. This is obviously not ready, unless ITN has absurdly low standards for what it puts on the Main Page. Harrias talk 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not ready in any way, shape or form. No references in the race section at all. Plenty to fix – please fix the article before you mark it as Ready again, because continuing to make such obviously false claims in order to score points in a contest is completely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely not ready - I agree with TRM, most of the article is unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cannes Film Festival[edit]

Article: 2015 Cannes Film Festival
Blurb: 2015 Cannes Film Festival concludes with the Palme d'Or being awarded to Dheepan.
News source(s): Cannesthe Guardian
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Palme D'Or TBD -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Obv. pending updates, main article is in great shape, hopefully the same standard will be on the winning film's article too. And ITN/R. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Winner is announced (Dheepan) but that article is woefully poor even if it is not the key target link. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both the main article (which doesn't appear to be bold linked, why not?) and the award article are inadequately updated for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Indian Premier League[edit]

Article: 2015 Indian Premier League
Blurb: In Twenty20 league cricket, Mumbai Indians wins 2015 Indian Premier League
Alternative blurb: In cricket, the Mumbai Indians win the Indian Premier League after defeating the Chennai Super Kings in the Final.
Alternative blurb II: In cricket, Mumbai Indians wins the Indian Premier League after defeating Chennai Super Kings in the finals
News source(s): IPL
Nominator: The Herald (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: Result TBD.

Nominator's comments: Biggest cricket league and notable throughout. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked and added the altblurb with two bold titles (as done for World Cup this March). -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
People watching this and not the New Zealand massive triumph at Lord's and French Open? Former should end today after tea or tomorrow by lunch... (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
England getting thrashed is nothing new, and tennis is boring anyway. So we'll stick to T20 cricket :) (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't quite work out that way, eh?!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Heh, it really didn't work out that way, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, "New Zealand massive triumph at Lord's" and "England getting thrashed". Beautiful! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support biggest t20 league in the world (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable tournament and ITN/R.Regards, theTigerKing  16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Not a big following outside of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzsmith (talkcontribs) 18:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Interesting, but ultimately incorrect and a pretty pointless comment which is actually untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Right here a few miles down the road = street party. What a night, what a week! #aamchiMumbai! (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment can anyone point me to the prose update in a suitably referenced article that covers this news story? If it exists, I'll post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Done (I think). - Dee03 03:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

[Posted] John Forbes Nash, Jr.[edit]

Updated article: John Forbes Nash, Jr.
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Mathematician, Nobel Laureate and the subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind, John Nash (pictured),dies in a car crash.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nobel laureate, subject of A Beautiful Mind, killed in car accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for prompt posting. Extraordinary and notable individual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is well-developed and referenced. A Nobel laureate whose work had a lot of impact in the real world and is much more well-known than most Nobel laureates - i.e., is well-known as well as notable. Taknaran (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. No question on importance, article has a few tiny issues but far from levels to prevent posting to ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. John Forbes Nash had a great impact in the fields of mathematics, economics and even mental health. He and his wife Alicia were the subject of the book and film, A Beautiful Mind. (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (this is AstroHurricane001, and this is the only time I will ever leave a comment as an anonymous user)
  • Comment. All the news stories I have seen regarding this call him "John Nash". Formerip (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment An RD definitely should go up, but as I'm reading more, he and his wife were killed in a car crash (as passengers in a taxi). While they were both in their 80s, this still seems to me like a possible blurb. I suggest discussing that separately, noting the RD has clear consensus at the moment. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe blurb it with his recent Abel Prize win with Louis Nirenberg? [9] I would have nominated it separately, since it is on ITN/R, but unfortunately this event inevitably overshadows that. Fuebaey (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The Abel was announced in March and was noted at ITNR. (I did check on this as I had the same idea) - last week was just the formal ceremony. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A rare individual who was both a giant in his field and a public figure due to the Hollywood biopic of his life. Girona7 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Marking ready, looks to be updated. Unfortunate death. Brandmeistertalk 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb Notable personality and the subject of a Notable movie. Unfortunate event. Please post it now. Regards, theTigerKing  16:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly no opposition on notability, but does nobody have issues with how much of the text is unsourced but me? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
With such a notable death, I think the state of the article is less of an important factor than getting this up quickly. Added visibility will hopefully prompt others to improve the article. Incidentally, I could go either way with a blurb, but I do think the RD should go up right away. Girona7 (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing an issue with appropriate density of sourcing. There's only one para that's on the longer side that has two cites at the end to support it, but that's fair. (There's also a long block quote but that has the correct single ref) --MASEM (t) 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Full blurb Nobel Prize winner in 1994 for Nash equilibrium, Abel Prize winner in 2015 (I believe the first to win both?) and portrayed in Beautiful Mind in 2001, not many scientists are more widely known to the public. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting RD for the time being. Can be upgraded to a full blurb, if consensus is such. --Tone 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Full blurb warranted given circumstances, no other living mathematician was a household name. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb as he occupies iconic place in modern history of mathematics and the popular culture.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Blurbs for deaths should always meet a very high threshold. Fairly or unfairly, this is someone best known for being portrayed in a film, which is reflected in the coverage of his death. I don't think the manner of the death matters. Road traffic accidents are common and unremarkable. Formerip (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose blurb most famous (realistically) because he was noted in the movie, top of his field etc so suitable for RD, but not a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Sudden, tragic end to a beautiful mind (to borrow a phrase). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, my eyes actually bugged when I saw the news. Also, wife died too, so a blurb is needed. Abductive (reasoning) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The eyes have it! Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb - Lots of recognition. Not just a major achievement in his field, but in his personal life as well. An inspiration. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment happy to post blurb based on recent voting, would be helpful if one or more those ardent supporters fixed the issues currently noted on the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Oppose Blurb A noteable death, but not, I'd wager, a "household name" in most households. (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb' pretty much the only mathematician (or any non-peace/literature nobel winner) that is a "household name". (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD A very important mathematician, but I doubt anybody would be pushing for a blurb if it weren't for A Beautiful Mind. To my mind, being portrayed in a famous film is not a good reason for posting a blurb. Neljack (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Nobel prize, Abel, highly influential, unexpected and tragic death, one of the VERY few mathemeticians any layman knows the name of. Really as obvious as it gets, we've got every checkbox filled. "If it weren't for all those things that made him famous, nobody would know who he is" is the most spurious reasoning I can really think of not to blurb this. - OldManNeptune 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Won both the Nobel Prize and its equivalent in mathematics. And yes, he was the subject of an Oscar winning biopic. Easily the peer of popes and presidents. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb for many of the reasons listed above, but also because this is someone who the average reader will take an interest in based on a blurb that are not served by the RD mention. What issues are left on the articles? - Floydian τ ¢ 06:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Easily the peer of popes and presidents, but we don't post every pope or president. His death received respectable coverage worldwide, but nowhere near the level of the likes of Mandela - BBC had live coverage of Mandela's funeral, which was attended by most of the world leaders. Nash's death is simply not on the same level. He is notable, his death is notable, his death is exactly what RD was intended for and that is where it should go.No longer a penguin (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind: he and his wife were killed in a car accident (as passengers in a taxi), not simply passing from old age. Only a week prior did he travel to get the Abel prize - he was still very active. So the death is unusual akin to Robin Williams. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - surely one of the most well known modern mathematicians due to the film on him. Nobel/Abel Prize confirm his scientific credentials. Unnatural death, too. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Support RD. There is no question that this person meets the criteria for ITND. However obits are very rarely posted in the ITN blurb section and the bar there is extremely high. I think Robin Williams got in because he was a global celebrity and a giant in his field. But I honestly don't think this gentleman falls into the same category. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted full blurb. Consensus in favor of full blurb. SpencerT♦C 19:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Mexican shootout[edit]

Articles: 2015 Michoacán shootout and Jalisco New Generation Cartel
Blurb: At least 40 people are killed in a shootout in Mexico between Federal police and members of Jalisco New Generation Cartel.
News source(s): Google
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Note: No stand alone article..

Nominator's comments: Worldwide news.. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle: See, this is the kind of news that the Waco shootout wasn't. Law enforcement officers were hurt and killed, a notable drug cartel was involved, and the shootout could signal a new phase in the Mexican federal government's willingness to confront cartels. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Sit on your pointy lecturing, Kudzu, it's rude and irrelevant to the nomination, the biker shootout was the biggest ever in the US, this Mexican dustup is par for the course. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hah...see the death lot. Four times of it...-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
My intent is not to lecture, but to explain my reasoning for supporting this while opposing that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll be happy to accept that, but when you start of a comment with "See,..." it sounds like daddy telling sonny boy. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That being said, it goes without saying that the target article will need to be drastically expanded and improved if we are to post it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Telegraph: "More than 100,000 people have died in clashes between the drug gangs and security forces since the start of 2007" That's about 1,000 a month, over 30 a day. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct, but most of the incidents in the conflict involve low counts. 40 dead in the single shootout is notable. ComputerJA () 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support assuming the article is improved, a huge loss of life between gangs fighting it out. Gun violence (alone) in the US kills around 30,000 per year, that's about 80 per day. This is a huge story. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable event in the Mexican Drug War; even though the conflict has left over 100,000, most of the incidents involve low body counts. 40+ dead in a single event is pretty unheard of for Mexico. In addition, this incident is part of the major crackdown of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in recent months. ComputerJA () 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The above unsourced assertions that this is unique is simply false and just a cursory reading of the sources 44 killed in 2012 prison riot or the 43 dead at the hands of gangs and the authorities 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping and other shootouts involving the arrest of drug kingpins show that violence on this scale in Mexico is hardly unique or even uncommon. Maybe 40 makes the notability threshold, but the reckless disregard of the facts and the comparisons with the US are shameful. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Those are still quite notable events. The incident of the 43 missing students is likely to affect Mexico's presidencies in the years to come. The implications of that case were huge. Aside from that incident, there have not been major events like that in this current administration. The closest one was the mass murder in Tlatlaya, which is one of the biggest scandals the Army has had in years. In terms of cartel–security forces clashes, this is a very notable event. In addition, this event is important because its part of a series of confrontations the Mexican government has had with the Jalisco New Generation. Their leader, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes ("El Mencho"), is arguably Mexico's most-wanted. ComputerJA () 21:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. Any event that stirs up this kind of drama is definitely post-worthy. (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant body count for a single incident. As noted, the currently unrated article needs work, which appears to be in progress. Jusdafax 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose We just said no to the mass gang shooting in Texas that ended with ten dead and more than 170(!) people facing organized crime charges that could land them in prison for life. Unless the only criteria for ITN is now a body count the Texas shooting was FAR more news worthy than this. I vehemently disagreed with that decision, but the precedent having been put in place I think the bar is now VERY high for these kinds of stories getting onto ITN. Under the circumstances I don't see how we can say yes to this without proclaiming a massive double standard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support The Mexican drug war has been bloody, and large #s of deaths in incidents like this are not unusual (and even here, where only one ot the deaths were a law enforcement agent, the rest the drug rings). But it has been pointed out that this is perhaps the largest know such event and has rekindled attention that there is a drug war problem in Mexico. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the background is more interesting than the shooting itself - estimates are of 106,000 killed between 2006 and 2014. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is [just] older than the Saudi bombing below. (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Regardless of the anti-American cancer here, I think we should post ongoing conflicts like this to an ongoing ticker, violence in: Mexico, Yemen, Iraq, Syria. Making each of these "yet another mass killing" items a posting when one happened in the same place last month is ridiculous, as well as, of course, needlessly contentious. Only things like the Hebdo, Breivik, Waco and Iguala massacres, which are unprecedented, should be posted. BTW, why is the Iguala massacre still called a "kidnapping" while no one doubts the students were all killed, and no ransom demands have been made? μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • They won't call the Iguala incident a "mass murder" because there are legal barriers that prevent the government from doing that. Only one student has been confirmed dead, and until the government shows that the students were indeed killed, they are categorized as "disappeared". Legally, you cannot be confirmed dead unless (1) post-mortem reports prove that you are or (2) if a judge dictates that you are. The second step can take years. A lot of the parents of the missing students have used this issue to pressure the government to continue with the investigation; they believe that if the government legally considers them dead, they will close the investigation and nothing will be solved. ComputerJA () 15:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the article's worth posting (I've been checking it for refs and clarifications needed) it's full of comments such as, "At the highway, the gunmen, alleged to be members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), attempted to flee from law enforcement, ensuing a vehicle persecution." This is apparently the bottom end of machine translation. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment the evidence I provided was purely contextual. If Americans don't like the fact that 80 people in the US are killed every day by guns alone, perhaps they should do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of ranting your personal views here as if it was your own blog, do you have any idea how politics and legislatures work? Laws don't get passed by fiat as if your own fiefdom. (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Far from ranting, I was explaining that I was putting the figures into context. If Americans don't like that, they should do something about it. Last time I checked it was a democracy, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Nor is it a FORUM. Some of your commentary has been pushing the envelope, particularly with regards FORUM. Please stop. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to America, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Americans have the constitutional right to defend themselves, a right which Europeans lack. Europe is populated with millions upon millions of Neville Chamberlains. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Having learnt from the redcoats, never shall we give that up. Meanwhile, I'm off to see our fellow colonists New Zealand thrash the crap out of England at Lord's... (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not going quite to plan though, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can we please stay focused on the merits or lack thereof of the proposed ITN blurb and skip the political editorializing. This is not the place for that. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    As I said, my statistics were purely to contextualise this event. It's the Americans who have become sniffy and shouty and ranty. Please check. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready: I'm marking this as ready. The article has been expanded considerably. The first oppose was addressed, and the second one has hardly anything to do with the proposed ITN blurb. ComputerJA () 16:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - My previous concerns regarding the article condition have been addressed, and my thanks to those working on it: I agree with the observation that the article is now acceptable for a front page posting, having been upgraded to a solid "start" class. I also agree with those expressing concerns about the editorializing here, which is arguably disruptive and patently uncollegial. Jusdafax 19:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - still notable enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Chinese floods[edit]

No consensus to post, article has been subsumed into a broader flood topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 China floods
Blurb: At least 55 people died in the floods in Yangtze.
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Note: Stub for now.

Nominator's comments: Notable throughout the globe along with the casualties. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We need an article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely not "just another flooding" with that many deaths. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article is a stub and in need of major expansion. Also I am not sure that 55 people is all that abnormal for major floods in China. In fact it sounds rather low. I will keep an eye on this in case the article improves dramtically and or more facts become available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Ad Orientem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, we need a much more better article to establish this as significant news. It should be reminded that ITN is not a news ticker but to highlight good-quality articles that happen to be in the news, so the lack of a significant article is troublesome. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's been a lot of death-related stories in the ITN already and floods keep happening all the time in China and India. So not an uncommon story. (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The article has been changed to a redirect; without its own article it seems unlikely this will be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 24 May 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] Eurovision Song Contest 2015 final[edit]

Proposed image

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2015

Blurb: Måns Zelmerlöw representing Sweden with the song "Heroes" (performance pictured) wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 in Vienna, Austria.
Alternative blurb: Måns Zelmerlöw representing Sweden with the song "Heroes" (performance pictured) wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 hosted by Vienna, Austria.
Alternative blurb II: "Heroes" performed by Måns Zelmerlöw (performance pictured) representing Sweden wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2015.
News source(s): [10], [11]
Nominator: BabbaQ (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Eurovision 2015 final tonight. BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support A majour pan-European event keenly followed and watched by tens of millions of Europeans and has international following as far as Australia. What could be added is that this is the 60th version of the contest. werldwayd (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on conclusion and update - article is prep well enough on that. Only tiny issue on article is that the album soundtrack cover violates NFC (it duplicates the logo of the event and thus unnecessary). --MASEM (t) 13:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Add a image of the winner as well. Before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The articles are updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support Major pan-European event, destined to get lots of attention in the media etc. Had a viewership of 195 million last contest, which is 80 million than the Superbowl, and that was deemed worthy. Airlinesguy (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Estimated audience was 200 million: [12] Also notable for being broadcast live for the first time in China. Martinevans123 (talk) ... and we even had the British voting being announced in French!
  • Support - for the record. as nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Bondaruk85 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The 60th anniversary of the competition and a very close contest, with much less of the reciprocal "political" voting that has marred recent events. Innovative staging of the winning song undoubtedly helped it. Also notable for the inclusion of a song from Australia which came fifth. The article looks excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Biggest music contest in the world.-- (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The 60th anniversary alone is reason enough for inclusion. I'm surprised it isn't up already. Peter Isotalo 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Why isn't this up? There doesn't seem to be anything major wrong with our page. SeraV (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The biggest music competition in the world with nearly 200 million views on television and online. Lucky102 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
An image update might be advisable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Not the proposed image, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

[Closed] 2015 Mexican cartel shooting[edit]

Nomination is duplicate of existing nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Mexican cartel shooting
Blurb: A shootout between Mexican police and unidentified gunmen kills 42 of the gunmen, as well as one police officer.
News source(s): US News CNN BBC
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Note: Article appears to be on the short side.

Nominator's comments: Very high death toll. However, I would be OK if this was merged with the other Mexican shooting that had already been nominated. Everymorning talk 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't this the same as that already nominated? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, TRM, you appear to be right. I will redirect this page to the other article. Feel free to close this nomination. Everymorning talk 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Marques Haynes[edit]

Article: Marques Haynes
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today New York Times
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Played for the Harlem Globetrotters for a number of years. Was often called one of the greatest dribblers in history, according to his USA Today obituary. He was also the first Globetrotter to be inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of FameEverymorning talk 02:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support: I don't know that being a great dribbler puts you at the top of a field, per se, but he was a notable figure in exhibition basketball and the article is well-referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with more refs: Being in the Hall of Fame is a key sign of being top of his field, but that isn't even cited. Also OR in "Legacy". '''tAD''' (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support the notability is mild despite HoF (several hundred people in that hall) and the article is extremely weak for someone who is considered to be top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose . I might come down on the support side if the claims about influencing other people were cited, as well as being known for a catch phrase. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN had not posted to RD far more important basketball players. This isn't like ice hockey where we add every dead Hall of Famer. –HTD 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support - still notable. RD seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD A Hall of Famer and iconic figure in the sport. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The major issues with the article should now be resolved. I've removed some unreferenced claims, expanded the sections on his early life, playing career, and retirement, and added several references to reliable sources. If someone wants to mark this as ready to post, I'm all for it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A bit of an unconventional individual, but meets DC#2. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this article has been increased 50% in size and all the CN's addressed since I checked it at noon. It should go up asap. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hillary Clinton emails released[edit]

No consensus to post at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 May 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: Emailgate#Release
Blurb: The United States Department of State releases hundreds of Hillary Clinton's emails.
News source(s): BBC Reuters NPR
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: This story has gotten a considerable amount of news coverage over the past 2 months since it began, and this development has received a great deal of media coverage, e.g. it is actually the lead story on the BBC ( Everymorning talk 19:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Until there's actually charges made over this, this is just US politics for right now. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is certainly not "the lead story on BBC news", and not the lead story on their worldwide site either, it's a single line well below the fold and below such excitements as the future career prospects of Ed Balls. This is something literally nobody outside the US is even aware of let alone cares about, and I very much doubt if most people in the US care either. Mogism (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This page warns people not to complain about an event relating to only one country, so the above opposes are therefore suspect. Everymorning talk 19:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • My oppose is not because this is only happening in the US, as this does relate to world events, but it is basically being pushed as a news story because it is a huge politic mess on the year prior to US election year, so right now this is just political party posturing. This is also not expected to reveal any major deep secrets like Snowden's leaks were. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The BBC home page, like a lot of modern websites, changes what article in on its main paged depending on your location. This might be on the top for someone looking at in the United States, but is is a 3rd-level headline, below the fold, on the UK version. Therefore using the local version of the site to claim international coverage is invalid. (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm really not seeing anything here as a news story in the least. It reads and feels more like supermarket tabloid fodder more than a breakthrough or something else of equal weight. The Forex scandal, the ongoing unrest in the Middle East, even association football results seem more newsworthy than this. Challenger l (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Open-ended non-event, with no conclusions drawn. Agree with Challenger 1. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quite apart from being a parochial political story, the emails don't even appear to be that interesting. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 22 May 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.

I'm not sure where Walt bashed America, but it doesn't matter; closed should mean closed. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 23 May 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.

  • Post-closing oppose for good measure. We don't need to be a running ticker of local political gamesmanship.--WaltCip (talk) 22:16, 22 May 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] Saudi Arabia bombings[edit]

Updated article: 2015 Qatif mosque bombing
Blurb: Up to 30 people are killed by a suicide bomb in Qatif, Saudi Arabia.
Alternative blurb: At least 6 people are killed and 20 injured by a suicide bomb at a Shiite mosque in Qatif, Saudi Arabia.
News source(s): Reuters NYTimes BBC RT
Nominator: (give credit)
Updater: Nannadeem (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Wikipedia won't let me create the article but I'm sure someone will get to it shortly.

Nominator's comments: Oddly enough saudi bombings are rare and this is more sectarian division in the region lately.. (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support — per news of massive loss of life. --Saqib (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if updated – huge devastation and another chapter in the Sunni-Shia relations which have been strained ever further by the Saudi intervention against the Houthis and disputes in the Gulf. The article however is one sentence, clearly not postable. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do we have a better source on this than the execrable RT? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There's definitely more sources, I've added the NYtimes which I note has lower death numbers than RT, and I would consider more reliable for that. Alt blurb to refelct. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it just a figment of you imagination or do you have ANY proof beyond your indoctrination from whatshisname at RFE/RFRL that RT fabricates news like NYT and BBC did to go to Gulf War 3.0? Wake up, puppet! (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - first major ISIS attack in the country. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ISIL attack could be intended to provoke sectarian conflict. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Return ISIL to ongoing: The rate of incidents involving this unpleasant band has risen sharply over the past couple of weeks. It's time to place ISIL in ongoing once more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as per Jenda. --AntanO 13:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Why is this still open? 30 hours gone after nomination and will be stale in another 10 hours. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per Kudzul. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Irish marriage referendum[edit]

Updated article: Same-sex marriage in Ireland and article to update: Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
Blurb: Voters in Ireland legalize same-sex marriage in a first-of-its-kind referendum.
Alternative blurb: Voters in Ireland legalize same-sex marriage in a first-of-its-kind referendum.
Alternative blurb II: Voters in Ireland pass a historic constitutional referendum on same-sex marriage.
Alternative blurb III: Ireland becomes the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage by constitutional referendum.
News source(s): Guardian - earlier - BBC Sky guardian (before poll) The Guardian Irish Times France 24
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Polls have closed, voter turnout higher than previous referendum, a No vote leader has conceded defeat and final result will be by 16:00 GMT.

Nominator's comments: Unique referendum receiving lots of international attention. Polls forecast a victory for same-sex marriage advocates, which would be historic in such a deeply religious country; if the polls are wrong, that's a story in itself. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Over the past several years a lot of countries have done this and while they have been nominated, it's not really news. If a country in the Middle East votes to legalize, that is definitely post-worthy. SpencerT♦C 07:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The fact that this is (almost certain to be) the first time that same-sex marriage has been legalized at a national level by direct democracy is interesting, but individual US states have passed marriage referenda before (Washington Referendum 74, Maryland Question 6, Maine Question 1, 2012). Otherwise, as Spencer says, this just another Western European nation (and really, Ireland's behind the curve here - the only places west of the Rhine outside the island of Ireland without same-sex marriage are microstates like Andorra and dependencies like Gibraltar and the Faroe Islands). Smurrayinchester 09:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support only if it passes, not because it legalizes gay marriage, but because it is the first national referendum to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Its not notable. Not a first for the west nor for a Catholic country in the west (spain and Portugal) or outside the west (Argentina and, I believe, Uruguay). Chile legalizing divorce in the 21st century was notable, possibly the last country to do so. Now when Nicaragua legalizes even a section of abortion that would be notable (mother's life at risk for one). (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if passed: Use of direct democracy to change constitutional law. Ireland may not be Uganda, but it is still conservative compared to the rest of northern Europe. If rejected, this merely continues a status quo '''tAD''' (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Important note: The linked page is a framework for both referendums on the same day, the other being a slightly less spicy reduction of the age to be President. The target article should be Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015. Would it over-egg to mention that this is constitutional law? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, working on the assumption that the polls are right, and the Irish will do the right thing. Strong oppose if rejected. This is a massive thing for Ireland, homosexuality was only decriminalised there 22 years ago. However, if it passes they will be the 20th country to legalise gay marriage, so it's hardly the news it used to be. Whatever happens, the misspellings in the blurb need to be corrected. Fgf10 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if passes; as noted by others, this would be the first time that direct democratic action has led to change in same-sex marriage laws for a country. (All others appear to have been via representatives, and not direct democratic action). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note that I think the bolded article for the blurb should be Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015. This is what will have the full details of the proposal, referendum, and results. I've put this different wikilinking & bolding as an alt blurb. Mamyles (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if it passes, per tAD and 331. Such a result would have been unthinkable in the religiously conservative Ireland of even 20 years ago. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It would have been unthinkable in almost ANY country 20 years ago. And it would have been ITN worthy at the time. But this is not 1995. In 2015 Western Countries are practically tripping over each other in a collective rush to legalize SSM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if it passes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A referendum in a small country that is part of Europe where secularism has been growing by leaps and bounds. I think the only way I might support this would be if it actually failed as that would be a major surprise outcome. Not sure even then. This just looks like the latest domino to fall and fairly unimportant outside of Ireland. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if it passes. .Might help reduce all that illegal cross-border gay cake-running. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What is a gay cake? Sca (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Instead people will focus on the real issue of our times, gay pizzas from Indiana -- Aronzak (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if passes. I usually oppose same-sex marriage posts because it has become common to legislate for it in the West. However, this will be the first time that same-sex marriage will have been introduced through a referendum of all the citizens. That that will happen in a (previously?) very conservative and religious country adds to the notability as a significant milestone in issues around same-sex marriage. --Tóraí (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support First time that Same-sex marriage has been put to a constitutional referendum, and it will be influential in the rest of Europe, especially if it passes. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Support if passed. As mentioned above, blurbs need correction, it should be 'legalise'. (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. We should wait for the results, but the No side has conceded defeat. [13] 331dot (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Although results aren't final, Reuters calls it a "landslide," and AP, quoting both sides, says "Ireland has voted resoundingly to legalize gay marriage." Significant, not only as referendum first, but also due to the Irish Republic being (nominally) 84 percent R.C. (cf. Poland 87 percent, Italy 81 percent). Sca (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – always nice when a country votes for something that shouldnt even be an issue. Its 2015 not 1815.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Though I agree, liking the result is not a reason to support posting. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - homosexuality was decriminalised in Ireland in 1993. That's in part why this is emblematic of such a remarkable turnaround for the country in only just over two decades. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as its not noteworthy when a western country does it. It's just a routine for them to go for it (as last week saw a Premier wed his gay partner). But if it happens in East, it definitely IS a news. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is noteworthy when it is the first done by referendum, as this is. I agree that the mere fact it is legalized does not merit posting, but the method by which it was legalized should. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the country where it was legalized. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
A court legalizing it nationwide(which might be done in the US soon) or a legislature doing so is very different than the population of a nation voting to do so themselves. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 22 years after homosexuality was finally decriminalised, it looks like the first national referendum taken on this subject has made Ireland the 20th country to recognize same-sex marriage at a national level. Sounds pretty noteworthy to me. Challenger l (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support . First country to do so by National referendum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once final result has been added to the article (expected in about an hour or two from now): It is notable, mainly because it is the first time any country has done this by direct popular vote, but perhaps also because the people voting still seem exceptionally conservative (their Constitution still bans abortion, as a result of a 1983 referendum), and perhaps also because it's deemed notable enough to be made front page news in many parts of the world in such traditional "reliable sources" as the New York Times, Le Monde, Al Jazzeera, etc (for details, see RTE's item on Reaction around the world) - a small West European country's parliament voting for the same thing would be lucky to get a mention on the inside pages. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when passed which is likely as per other posts. Donnie Park (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: that a country has passed same-sex marriage by referendum is so far unique, and thus particularly noteworthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb III, which explains the historic significance of the vote better than the other options. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Question: should the size of the turnout or the result be included in the blurb? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think we've mentioned that in past elections and referenda that have been posted to ITN. Official results haven't come out yet, anyway, although it's clear from the returns so far that the amendment was approved by a wide majority. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted using altblurb III; clear consensus to post. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Now appears as Ireland becomes the first country in the world .... IMO it ought to read,The Republic of Ireland becomes the first country in the world.... I realize Ireland links to Republic of Ireland, but it shouldn't be necessary for Main Page readers to click on Ireland to learn which Ireland we mean. Sca (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(Besides, we wouldn't want to rouse the ire of Northern Ireland residents.) Sca (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not possible up there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is going to be confused by the blurb because there's only one country that is ever referred to as Ireland. Why add two unnecessary words to a blurb? Formerip (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that the word Ireland can refer to the whole island. Support amending blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Inquiry. I thought the Ulstrians called themselves Ulstrians, or Northern Irelanders. I have never heard the Irish call themselves the South Irish. Granted, I don't live there, but this seems like an overcomplication for the sake of justifying British political occupation. Given the "southrons" aren't about to stone queer couples to death, is there a point in this Ulster has nothing to do with it objection? μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 21[edit]

May 20[edit]

[Posted] Forex scandal[edit]

Article: Forex scandal
Blurb: Five banks agree to pay settlement fines totaling over USD $5.7 billion over manipulation of foreign exchange rates in the Forex scandal.
Alternative blurb: Five banks agree to pay settlement fines totaling over USD $5.7 billion over manipulation of foreign exchange rates.
Alternative blurb II: Five banks agree to fines totaling over USD $5.7 billion over manipulation of foreign exchange rates.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Masem (give credit)

Note: Not yet updated to include these final fees.

Nominator's comments: Significant bank scandal - as this is to clear out legal issues to avoid further investigation (they are pleading guilty to some of the charges), this appears to be the "final" point of this story. MASEM (t) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support A major international banking scandal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Added an altblurb just in case, as the name of this scandal is not necessarily well-known. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support These are some big-name banks, looking at the article. Business is also an infrequently posted topic on ITN. --WaltCip (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Big banks, big bucks. (Is the word settlement necessary?) Sca (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I included that because this should be the practical end of the situation, it is not just fines and the case going forward. But if it is seemingly clear, that can be removed. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No doubt you mean unclear. Rationale understood, but I just don't think settlement fines is a phrase in general usage. ("Settlement" isn't normally an adjective.) Seems to me if we say "agree to pay fines" the implication that it's a settlement is pretty clear. But no biggie. Sca (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when updated - major news in an area (business) that tends to be underrepresented. The alt blurb is preferable, I think. I don't think "pay settlement fines" is good English. Either "agree to fines" or "announce a settlement" is better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability: Big scandal, big money, big news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Added Altblurb2 based on comments above. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It's rare when banks get caught and own up to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a paragraph to summarize the current news on that article. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb2 - Big money, big banks, big news. This blurb is the most preferable blurb to me Palmtree5551 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as this is a very important news about the outcome of a major financial scandal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready. ITN worthy scandal and well cited fit-for-main page article. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose main blurb, because the capitalisation unjustly accuses an uninvolved Swedish bank. Narayanese (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Merge/blurb: Palmyra[edit]

Article to update: Palmyra
Blurb: Islamic state of Syria and Levant seizes holds of the ancient city Palmyra, Syria.
News source(s): Google
Nominator: The Herald (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable undoubtedly. Suggest a merge with the current ITN blurb. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment According to BBC, they seized the northern part but not reached the ruins yet which are in the south-west. I'm inclined to wait for a while. Brandmeistertalk 14:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Support Reported to be seized now. God save Palmyra from destruction. Brandmeistertalk 08:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait This appears to be an in progress event. Beyond which this has the potential to develop into a really major story given ISIL's aversion to anything hinting at civilization. There are some major ruins there that these savages misunderstood missionaries have vowed to raze. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple RS sources are reporting the city has in fact fallen. And there are huge fears for some of the world's most magnificent ruins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait but would support if does end up the case. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Reuters is reporting that Palmyra has been seized by ISIS. [14] Everymorning talk 19:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And now the lead story on the New York Times is that Palmyra has been conquered. Support updating blurb, this is a significant development in this situation. Everymorning talk 22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support given multiple sources reporting that the town is conquered. Suggestion that we have a possibly better target link than just Palmyra like one to ISIL or this specific expansion? ---MASEM (t) 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending update. The article on the city is high quality, in fact is a GA, but so far there are just a couple scattered sentences regarding the fall of the city to ISIS. Jusdafax 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palmyra is in Syria, it's absurd to claim some body whose name would include Israel and Lebanon has accomplished this, when they have taken the northern outskirts. It's like saying Elizabeth, Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France and the South Seas, has birthed a great grand-daughter. Not that there's anything wrong with that. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It is not so much that Palmyra is in Syria, but that it is home to a large number of ancient and important ruins that have in the past been key to understanding human developing in the Cradle of Life. And like before, ISIL seems set to wipe out those ruins without care as part of their actions. If it was yet another city in Syria, sure, it would go under ongoing, but its the ruins that many are worried about. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree with Masem, and if you haven't read the article by all means please give it a look. I was unfamiliar with the rich history of this town. Also, the major natural gas fields in the area are a consideration in the news stories I have been reading. Jusdafax 04:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merging of blurbs this is a big news story. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. BBC is now reporting that ISIS have entered the World Heritage Site itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ISIS are destroyers. It's their nature. This is par for the course, nothing unusual for them. If the world had really cared about that "world heritage site" which ISIS will now wield their implements of destruction upon, they would have done something to stop ISIS. They haven't. If the world doesn't care, why should Wikipedia care? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that this is indeed in the news, internationally, means that the world does care. What the world might not support is overt military action, but that's another matter and nothing to do with us. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Being in the news is not a ticket to an entry here. If it were, Letterman's final show would have been included. And if the world doesn't care enough to do something about it, it's the same as not caring at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any clue as to the international significance of the Palmyra news, as against that of a US media person, about whom the rest of the world says, "Who?". Apparently not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Letterman was covered internationally. Oh, I forgot - wikipedians are smarter than the BBC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
We are, though not always. Brandmeistertalk 15:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Letterman is more important than the invasion and probable destruction of thousands of years of history. God Bless America! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted as combined blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment my opposed above was based on the blurb wording and that reports were that they Syrian insurgents hadn't taken the archeologically significant part of the city yet. At this points it's moot and I have no complaints. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question- Why is this not ongoing? There are at least ten new stories every day! Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Two reasons: 1) If events are important enough for a blurb, that always overrides an "ongoing" listing. 2) Prior to this week, there was no regularly updated article to point an ongoing listing to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] David Letterman's final show[edit]

No consensus is developing to post, especially give the longevity record is US-only. Stephen 06:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article to update: David Letterman
Blurb: David Letterman, the longest-serving late night talk show host in television history, airs his final show.
News source(s): BBC CBC Sky News (Australia) Le Monde
Nominator: Bongwarrior (give credit)

Article needs updating

Note: This hasn't happened just yet - the final show will have just finished airing a little under 24 hours from now, but I thought a head start on the discussion might be useful. The blurb can be improved, and I'm not sure if that "longest serving" part belongs there or not.

Nominator's comments: This is entertainment news, but I believe it's significant entertainment news. Letterman is the longest-serving late night talk show host in history, longer than Carson, longer than Leno (albeit on two networks, in two time slots). I don't consider it hyperbole to call the man an icon. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose "Retirement" in this day and age of entertainment is not a sure thing. I'm aware of what Letterman has said that this is it, it, but that can always change. And because his stint as a late night talk show run has not be on the same show, there's nothing there either. But if there's consensus that because he's said multiple times that he's retiring, that might be okay to post. However, I also point out that this is bordering on plain old celebrity/entertainment news, which is something we tend to avoid at ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose much for the same reasons as the last season of American Idol. Believe it or not, in other English speaking countries, not many even know who he is. (UK). When he dies, 100% support, but not another show ending, to be replaced by another host. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support everybody in the US knows the show, a bunch of people from outside know it. The show has established many records and somehow it is still popular and pertinent. He does not appear at all to be the know of person to undo the retirement (he is actually old, his place is taken by somebody else, and considering he has made fun of Leno/Conan drama he isn't going to try to undo it). And his retirement is far more notable than a potential death. Nergaal (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nergaal, who said he's known in US and I could hardly find any more notability of him outside America. Its like he's retiring, an expected thing from his faithful old service. Its like that American Idol nom only. Nothing significant. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose parochial story of little historic or encyclopedic notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Letterman would merit posting to RD (in the far future) given his career and as such I think the end of his career is notable, if getting notable coverage which this is(even outside the US). I also don't think this is garden variety celebrity news(like a marriage, divorce, or birth). The fact that retirements can change is not relevant; most items that get posted can potentially change in the future. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: We posted Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement. I'm sure that got moderate coverage in the US, just as this gets moderate coverage outside the US. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Letterman is probably better known outside the US than Americans think - for people round the world searching for celebrities on YouTube, Letterman interviews and live music performances often surface high in the results. Bands will routinely Tweet and Facebook "watch us on Letterman tonight". Certainly not a completely parochial story. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose US-centric entertainment news. Letterman is known outside the US, but is show isn't widely watched. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We have a really good target article here, and this is a high-interest story for a lot of our readership. --Jayron32 09:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It is in the news, even here in Germany: [15], [16]. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - international has a link from the front page to a story on Letterman. He was on late-night TV longer than Carson. And his article is excellent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every show will come to its end at some point and there is no reason to post it unless it has the potential of generating extraordinary impact. Please don't forget that in 2010 we didn't post the conclusion of Larry King Live, which was far more popular and watched TV show.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's an example of the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't take it as a precedent to oppose this but just mention it to explain my reasoning why we shouldn't regress to posting stories with very limited significance in times when the nominations we discuss greatly outnumber those we dealt with five years ago. You cannot simply remove the history of ITN and what we discussed in the past by ruleslawyering as a defending mechanism to throw away the opinions of others. If you wish a simple oppose, then I'd say that this is a minor news with zero impact compared to what is happening in the world these days.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This surprisingly is the type of news that also makes it also to more or less serious news shows outside the US. That makes it a relevant news item. L.tak (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Letterman has been around much longer and has more standing by far than American Idol which was rightly rejected. That said, I am uncomfortable with a lot of these entertainment related stories and don't want ITN turning into the Wikipedia version of Variety (magazine). But yeah this story has been getting a lot of attention from the mainstream press, including some overseas coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that it's an important series, but there is nothing particularly special about a single episode. I do not think a retirement party is especially notable or of import. Frankly, retirement is a typical, routine event. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The episode itself doesn't matter enough for ITN. The infinite nothingness that follows in the series is the neat thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we shouldn't post this, just like we shouldn't have posted Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Though much ballyhooed, event itself lacks EV. Sca (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although it won't pass because people tend to get offended when something is America-related. Idol is different; Letterman does have a legacy. There are plenty of British-related blurbs I have no interest or knowledge in, but I don't object to them because people do need equal coverage for big events. Anyone who says a legacy television show ending is not newsworthy is simply blind to culture. Thatdee69 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Thatdee69: You should be more careful in choosing the words to express your disappointment. Complaining by using phrases like 'blind to culture' largely cross the red line of civility. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Letterman is a late-night icon and the longest-serving host. I'm not generally a fan of putting much pop culture on ITN, but I'm inclined to back this nom because he really was a transformative figure in the medium. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose What are we going to have as the update, a run-down of the guests? Letterman's not dead, and the end of the show's been planned years in advance. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It would be great if ITN had the kind of topic diversity so that it could just include this, but it doesn't, and I think making an exception for this particular story would be the kind of systematic bias we should avoid. Formerip (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I really don't see the significance. Yes, it was a long running programme/host, but in the end it's only a TV programme. Fgf10 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Only is a strange word to use here, I think. In that respect, you could say that everything that is not politics, war and so forth is only this or that. You could say it about every bit of culture we post here: sports, paintings, etc. The things is, culture (and that includes TV, since it's still the widest ranging form of culture) is not just an ornament of our society, it constitutes one of its very backbones. We consume it every day, it changes the way we look at things, the way we decide. So, yes, it is only a TV programme, but how does that make it any less important than the Islamic State or Barack Obama? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would guess it has something to do with longevity. Sure, Letterman will be noted as a celebrated television presenter for years to come but he's not dead, he's simply moved on. Islamic State and Barack Obama will be hard-coded into history indelibly. There's no comparison at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never had a good time listening to either of those. People remember the good times. Happy people, anyway. Miserable people are doomed to remember misery. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just in case this does get posted, the blurb should say " US television history". Gay Byrne for one beats him to the international record. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    A subtle yet important point, a lot of people are proclaiming Letterman to be this record-holder, but it's simply not true. Good old Gaybo! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as noted above he is not the world record holder (whereas when we noted The Guiding Light's finale, it was the longest-running electronic scripted show at that time by far). Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had been wondering if he really was the longest-serving late-night chat show host in TV history. Now that we have established that he isn't, I don't see a reason to post. It's a good example of systemic bias in media sources - there are all these news articles saying that he's the longest-serving, but it turns out that's just a case of Americans forgetting the rest of the world exists. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I Guess So Canadians are raised on American TV, too. While the rational part of me knows it was just a show, in the grand scheme of things, the irrational part is screaming "Just a show?!? It's David Letterman! He's leaving! Come on, man." It wins this round. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of that rousing Canadian support, I'll be happy to change my vote if we use the blurb "27 years after a guest tried to kick him in the forehead, a gap-toothed Hoosier flees the small screen". μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A date which will live in infamy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's not - Not significant enough. Are there any other internationally significant talk show hosts enough to be mentioned ITN in the future? --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Stone Cold Steve Austin (of Lopez Tonight fame) recently got a network deal for his show. It's not a "real" network, just the WWE Network, but still reaches about 175 countries. In that sense, it makes the "Big 3" look small. He shouldn't be cancelled for a while, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but there's also the fact that my ultimate crush flashed Letterman. OR has to count for something here. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 21 May 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.


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: