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.
Shortcut:

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

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

Justin Trudeau
Justin Trudeau

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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


Suggestions[edit]

October 22[edit]


October 21[edit]


[Ready] Typhoon Koppu[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Typhoon Koppu (2015)

Blurb: Typhoon Koppu (satellite image pictured) kills at least 50 people and displaces more than 100,000 others across the Philippines.
News source(s): TWC, BBC, AlJazeera
Nominator and updater: Cyclonebiskit (give credit)
Other updaters: Meow (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deadliest typhoon of the year (specific to the 2015 Pacific typhoon season) with widespread and long lasting effects across Luzon. Nearly 1 million people have been directly affected by the storm, of whom more than 100,000 are displaced according to the latest Sit Rep from the NDRRMC. Also worth noting that at one point, 9 million people—approximately 9% of the entire country—were without power. I've been hesitant on nominating this since by Philippine standards it's not exceptionally bad but it's still a major natural disaster that's worth posting on ITN. Impact section could use some expansion, which I'm currently working on, but the pressing details are up-to-date and should meet ITN standards. Wasn't sure what day to place the nomination on since the storm struck on October 17 but effects are still ongoing (more fatalities occurred yesterday, fwiw). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Significant death toll and large number of displaced persons. Neljack (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant storm and human impact, article is well-sourced from the start. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Prhdbt [talk] 00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Well updated and although not unusual for the area, still worthy of mention to our Pacific readers. The next editor with a justified support should consider marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant weather event with widespread impact. Would mark as ready if I knew how. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Seong-Jin Cho wins the XVII International Chopin Piano Competition[edit]

Articles: Seong-Jin Cho and XVII International Chopin Piano Competition
Blurb: Seong-Jin Cho is named the winner of the 17th International Chopin Piano Competition
News source(s): BBC ABC News Business Insider

Nominator's comments: Advanced apologies if I'm doing the nomination incorrectly, as this is my first time to do an ITN nomination :) The South Korean Seong-Jin Cho was named the winner of the 17th Chopin competition in Poland, and I think that this one deserves a mention as the Chopin is a prestigious competition in classical music that happens every five years only. I've created a stub with some minimal information, will try to get back to editing it further during my lunch break. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Thanks for the nomination. Part of determining the consensus to post this depends on its coverage in the news; can you provide some links to news stories about this event indicating it is 'in the news'? 331dot (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
How many news items would be needed for this? Here are some of the English-language news items I've picked up so far:
There also seem to be others in Polish, [https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dAxGwzfmkkZPbaMD5O8Om3VfaGjXM&q=seong+jin+cho&lr=English&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0CCcQqgIwAmoVChMIw6fI2MfSyAIVjgmOCh1BCgKp Spanish and German [5] news websites, but I'm not well-versed in those languages to check the contents. There also appears to be a couple of news items in Korean, too. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on article quality - The links above do show the competition appears notable but the articles needs more prose and the like to be a suitable ITN entry - just a list of competition results is not sufficient. I don't know how much can be added for that, however. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like an important competition in the world of music. I believe the article is in adequate shape and decently sourced. Could it be expanded? Probably. But I am not seeing any issues that would bar linking it on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There are only 103 words in the prose of the article, or about 600b of text. That is nowhere sufficient, even if sourced, for a front page item. We have rejected ITNRs that lack such prose (such as the recent US tennis Open). --MASEM (t) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. |Haven't seen this in the press, and while the nom itself mentions the XVIIIth competition, the target article is the XVIIth competition. I think that speaks volumes. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I am fairly confident that XVIII is a typo. A cursory reading of the XVII article clearly indicates it is the correct one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both articles are way below the quality we want to see on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like sports, this is not really important in a world history context. So IMO the only argument to post it would be if it was prominently covered in the news - which it is not. Thue (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality. While this does seem to be covered in the news, and seems a notable competition in an area not often covered here, as stated by others the article quality is just not there(mostly lacking in prose). If that changed I would be willing to revisit my opinion, and either way I thank the nominator Tito Pao for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, but this may be one of those cases where sources just aren't there to write an in depth article on either the competition or the performer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality per TRM. Ping me when this meats the normal standards. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
siupport different topic and in RS media of note. (pending quality of course)Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 20[edit]


RD: Sir John Scott[edit]

Updated article: John Scott (medical researcher)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Ihcoyc (give credit)
Updater: Masterknighted (give credit)

Article updated


Note: Article is not very long, but seems reasonably well referenced but what do I know?

Nominator's comments: Decorated medical researcher. Not a great deal on the subjects of his research, but the subject was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire and former president of the Royal Society of New ZealandSmerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I have not found any news coverage of Sir John's death (I do find it a bit surprising that it hasn't made the news here in New Zealand, so please say if I'm missing something). Some degree of news coverage is obviously a prerequisite for featuring on In the News. As for whether he was a very significant figure in his field, I don't think a knighthood and the presidency of the Royal Society of New Zealand establish that by themselves. I would want to see an explanation of the significance of his research before deciding whether he meets the threshold. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This fails on quality and RD Notability. I have seen this nowhere in the news, and the article is basically at stub level, with a one-sentence lead. If it is greatly improved, ping me and I might say otherwise. But at this point it is a no. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] Remove "2015 Southeast Asian haze" from ongoing?[edit]

Other than table updates, which is disputed and discussed at Talk:2015 Southeast Asian haze, I do not see any substantial prose updates within last five days about "2015 Southeast Asian haze". And I mean prose. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal. This has relatively mellowed out, and the article hasn't had substantial updates for days. Mamyles (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This has gone stale, time to pull it. Jusdafax 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I really believe this hasn't been newsworthy for some weeks, so glad to see it being suggested for removal again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled. --Jayron32 14:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Of course I have no personal knowledge of this topic, but I noticed that Deutsche Welle's English-language TV news show today (Tues.) carried a segment on the Indonesia haze that said, among other things, that it remains severe and could continue for the rest of the year. Sca (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue in this case isn't whether or not news stories are still being written about the topic, except tangentially. The main issue is whether the highlighted Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with appropriate new material. Directing readers to articles on "ongoing" stories which are not being updated with quality new information on said stories is not keeping in line with the stated mission of ITN. --Jayron32 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So it remains severe and lasts all year, is that really something we need to persist on Wikipedia's Ongoing ticker? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
R U asking me to decide? I thought it was based on consensus. Sca (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No, definitely not. Decision has already been made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 19[edit]


[Posted] Swiss federal election, 2015[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Swiss federal election, 2015

Blurb: The Swiss People's Party, led by Toni Brunner, retains its plurality in the Swiss National Council.
News source(s): Time
Nominator: The Almightey Drill (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: Results not all confirmed yet.

 '''tAD''' (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Ready the article is well updated, over 5.8kb since the 15th and meets the prose requirements. The overall outcom,e is clear, even if a few races are not yet called. The English language press is probably a good 6-24 hours behind the Swiss media. I won't mark this ready yet, in case there's some odd factor that I am unaware of that someone wants to bring up. But my opinion is an admin should feel free to post it now. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider waiting as the composition of the executive could change. (unique system that Switzerland has)Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The update consisted of one sentence to the lead, two about the migrant crisis and a results table. It could do with more campaign issues and/or, at the bare minimum, prose to the body about the result. Fuebaey (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Given this is a new article, what is necessary is three paragraphs of prose with five sources. This isn't an old article. The winning plurality is not in doubt. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about your definition of new, but I doubt an article first created back in February 2014 fits that bill. I'm going to oppose based on the quality issues I've outlined above. Fuebaey (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support clearly covers the major issues, sufficiently long, no major quality issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I added a bit to the lede, regarding Swiss voter concerns re: immigration as a driving force in the rightward shift. Still could use expansion in the "Results" section of the article, but it's ready to post per TRM. Jusdafax 14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 20:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This should say gains a record plurality given that is what our article says. That's a bit different from simply winning reelection. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That claim isn't currently cited in the article; I can update if this can be confirmed. SpencerT♦C 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Per the report at WP:ERRORS (which seems to duplicate this comment), the party won 11 more seats than the previous election. Let's just keep some perspective and stick to reporting the absolute facts, and let our readers determine if such a feat is impressive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Canadian federal election, 2015[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Canadian federal election, 2015

Blurb: In the Canadian federal election, the Liberal Party wins an absolute majority in the House of Commons as Justin Trudeau (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Canada.
Alternative blurb: The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election.
Alternative blurb II: The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins an absolute majority in the Canadian federal election.
Nominator: Aerospeed (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: Preemptive nomination for an election of a G7 country. Pretty big deal regardless of whoever wins. No sources given yet since the results haven't come in yet. (They will come in around (9:30pm EST) Aerospeed (Talk) 00:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The blurb should follow our usual form for parliamentary elections - "X, led by Y, wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election" - rather than saying so-and-so is elected PM. The proposed blurb would be particular misleading if - as seems very likely - no party wins an overall majority. Neljack (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. An alt blurb has been added. Thanks! Aerospeed (Talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Polls close in, what, 19 hours? We might not know the result for about 24 hours. Why nominate so early? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Notable election. The early nomination has the advantage that when the result is known the blurb can be added quickly to the main page. It's good to have something quick on the main page so it looks that WP is verry up-to-date (and there were so less new items the last week.) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Interesting candidates reinforce this obvious ITN choice. Sca (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As this is ITNR support on the merits is not necessary; being on the ITNR list presumes such support. Only a blurb needs discussion and article quality assessed once the election results are announced. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is support on the merits prohibited? Sca (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Posting support on the merits for an ITNR item contributes nothing to the discussion, since that has already been decided. One can certainly post whatever they wish if they want to put the effort into doing something that isn't needed. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has called the election as a Liberal majority government. According to their live tracker, the Liberals have the lead in 184 ridings, with 110 seats confirmed (170 seats needed for a majority). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Original blurb is misleading, as Canadians don't elect a Prime Minister, per se. That job usually just falls to the leader of the party with the most seats in the House. Canuck89 (talk to me) 04:16, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Added second alt blurb, which I support now that more than 170 ridings have been claimed by the Liberals. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb for accuracy in a parliamentary democracy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb is more compact. -- Callinus (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but what's the advantage of the phrase "absolute majority' over the word "majority"?79.76.126.240 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2, but echo the questioning of the need for the word "absolute". Citobun (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with a blurb like this - The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins a majority in the Canadian federal election by winning 184 of 338 seats in Parliament. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The "absolute" in "absolute majority" is redundant. --LukeSurl t c 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - and suggest we post. Jusdafax 12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Yes. Agree that "absolute" is redundant, though. Time to post this – tops all the main Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

October 18[edit]


RD: Gamal El-Ghitani[edit]

Article: Gamal El-Ghitani
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): International Business Times Associated Press BBC News
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)


Note: Article is in need of some additional referencing and updating.

Nominator's comments: Award-winning Egyptian author and journalist with international recognition and acclaim. Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality. Unreferenced list of his books is entirely in transliterated Arabic. Only two different references for the whole article. May well meet ITN:RD#2. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Smerdis on quality. The article hasn't even been updted for tense, given his passing. It has an entirety of two (2) sources, and as stated, the bibliography is solely in transcibed arabic. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Guinean presidential election, 2015[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Guinean presidential election, 2015

Blurb: Alpha Condé is reelected President of Guinea.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC News
Nominator: Alifazal (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: Observers have said the vote was "valid despite logistical problems."

 Ali Fazal (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support not the greatest article I've ever seen but at least it's supported by decent referencing and clearly meets the criteria for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There were some uncited quotes in the article that I found references for; looks good to go. SpencerT♦C 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Reasonable-looking article. Should be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose No, this is not a particularly important election result. We need to cut down on these auto-postings and post stuff that matters. Any putative significance of this election is the fact that the first freely elected president was reelected, in what is described as a fair election. Unless the blurb and the article states why this election is particularly significant as elections go we shouldnt even consider it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This election is included in WP:ITN/R, as as such has already satisfied the "importance" criterion to post. If you would like to change that, feel free to post on ITN/R's talk page. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize that ITN has absurd criteria for inclusion, and no I dont care to try and change those except by pointing out when they lead to absurd editorial decisions such as for example automaticall posting the reelection of a president of tiny country and the automatic exclusion of a significant act of politically motivated violence in a major nation that has not experienced this kind of event for decades.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with Maunus, the Lukashenko re-election is about as much news as the fact that Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. But the problem is we'll end up with a stale or empty queue otherwise. If there were a lot of good nominations, we could argue whether A should push Z off the front page. At this point we're not looking at the prospect of still-fresh news being eliminated by a less important matter. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Being ITNR, even if the article is in good shape, is not a guarantee of posting if consensus thinks that on that specific recurring event, it really isn't as notable as other occurrences. This allows for easy-to-write-and-understand ITNR allowances that can be debated for the exceptional cases (as this one might be). --MASEM (t) 01:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing else has been posted at ITN in the past five days; this is hardly crowding out "stuff that matters", but if you feel that other potential items are being overlooked, please nominate them here at WP:ITN/C. Best, SpencerT♦C 01:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good article shape for an election. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

October 17[edit]


[Closed] RD: Howard Kendall[edit]

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 21 October 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: Howard Kendall
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eurosport BBC UEFA
Nominator: George Ho (give credit)


Note: More sources are needed.

Nominator's comments: Notable football player and manager throughout his career. George Ho (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The sourcing on this article seems very thin, absent in some sections - the statistics section relies on a sub-only service as a source, or no source at all. In addition - I am not seeing how he meets the bar, for notability or influence - the lead of the article does not do the job of outlining who he was, or what his influence was, aside from a few bullet points in his career, which started young. Challenger l (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing / article quality. In particular, the honours section is unreferenced. A two-time manager of the year and national hall of fame member would be arguable for RD. The "manager of the year" award for English football is a bit confusing - the article on this site about manager of the year awards only go back to 1992/93 (LMA Manager of the Year) or 1993/94 (Premier League Manager of the Season). This may have something to do with the restructure in English football around that time (the Premier League clubs broke away from the Football League in 1992). Biographies of various managers (Kendall, Bob Paisley, Bill Shankly) claim that they won "manager of the year" awards before then, but there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence (either in their articles or in other wiki pages). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability provided that the quality issues are resolved. Just about a support on notability - he was a notable player, famously youthful FA Cup finalist and a significant part of a championship-winning team, but never played at the highest level for England; his fame as a manager rests principally on his first spell at Everton where he a built a team which is one of the best seen in the English game in my living memory. On the point raised above, I think the manager of the year award at the time pretty much went to the league champions' manager regardless, so its probably not a key piece of supporting evidence. But he was certainly regarded as an important figure in the English game, so I'll support the nomination.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose a sad loss to the British game, and a truly great manager (probably Everton's finest ever) but not quite making it to RD level. We'd struggle to claim he was at the top of his field when we have contemporaries such as Ferguson and Wenger, and although being Everton's top manager, a couple of league titles, one European trophy and some other bits and pieces don't quite cut it. Article also needs a lot of referencing work, should consensus be in favour of his notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose mainly based on sourcing. Clearly known to Everton fans and anybody who watched English football in the 1980s, and gone too soon, but he wasn't as groundbreaking and internationally known as Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho et al. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:16, 20 October 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] Henriette Reker stabbing[edit]

SNOW close good faith nomination, but this single act of political violence won't be posted. It might be a reason to keep the migrant situation at Ongoing, but not as a separate blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 18 October 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: Henriette Reker
Blurb: Henriette Reker, a candidate in Cologne's mayoral race, is stabbed in the neck by a man claiming to be angry over the Germany's refugee policies.
News source(s): (BBC), (DW), (The Independent), (Euronews)
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)

 An independent candidate for mayor of the German city of Cologne, who is supported by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party, has been stabbed by a man while campaigning in the city. Henriette Reker and an aide were seriously injured. Mrs. Reker is in a critical condition. Three other people were injured when they intervened to help. Police say they arrested a 44-year-old man, who said he was motivated by Reker’s support for refugees. Reker is also backed by the FDP and Greens, and has been involved in supporting and helping house refugees in the city. The election takes place on Sunday. (Euronews) Jenda H. (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is already "European migrant crisis". And I doubt that, even with possibly mayoral changes, this would impact Germany's policies on migrants. George Ho (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Horribly sad, but not ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly minor acts of political violence occur daily all over the world. We can't put them all on ITN. IMHO this sort of thing should only be posted if a very high level official is the target. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As above, not ITN. And there's much more violence going on that we should cover first (if at all) before this one. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 18 October 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.

October 16[edit]


[Closed] RD: Mikhail Burtsev[edit]

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 21 October 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: Mikhail Burtsev
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TASS obituary
Nominator: Ihcoyc (give credit)

Article needs updating


Note: Article currently is a pitiful and sub-minimal stub. Best sources are likely in Russian, and I can't help much there.

Nominator's comments: RD blurb says he's a six time world champion in fencing (saber). Olympic career of two golds, two silvers from 1976 to 1988. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not on RD/importance merit, but I don't think this won't have a chance of being improved for RD posting. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The article is little more than a stub, but it is adequately sourced and the subject undoubtedly meets ITNDC #2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is expanded significantly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Seems questionable re DC2 due to passage of time. Sca (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
How does the passage of time detract from the multiple medals he won? 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't, but I think it makes it less likely that today he would be "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field." (But that's just a thought, hence a comment.) Sca (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough; thanks 331dot (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, and as stated by Masem it seems unlikely to be improved, but if it is, I would support as a multiple medal winner. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI I put an ITN Nom tag on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As most of the medals were won in team competitions. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once more than a stub: the notability, unlike Lugnuts, winning serious medals over a long timespan, regardless of team or otherwise, is notable. However, the article really is nothing more than a stub. We can do better, and don't forget, we're supposed to be promoting "quality" to the main page here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality given the lead restates the body of the text, the article does not meet the three pros-paragraph minimum for new articles. If Russophile users JackofOz or Любослов Езыкин or Ihcoyc want to update it, it may be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 21 October 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.

October 15[edit]


[Posted] RD: Kenneth D. Taylor[edit]

Updated article: Kenneth D. Taylor
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News Los Angeles Times Sydney Morning Herald The Atlantic
Nominator: Bloom6132 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The Canadian ambassador to Iran during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis who helped six American envoys escape in the "Canadian Caper" operation. Bloom6132 (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Article should be brought up to code before posting, but a very notable figure in his field and an important player in world history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Arguably the hostage rescue was not a single "event" - as sources suggest, it took some time of planning with Taylor's help to figure out how to do it and enact it. Add that he was also an ambassador from one country to another, which is not something to sneeze at by itself (it's not a line for automatic notability/importance but it is a position that requires some degree of recognition) --MASEM (t) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "ambassador from one country to another", do you know how many of those there are and how many there have been on planet Earth?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Roughly 200 squared at any current time. Which is why I said it wasn't an automatic pass at notability or importance, but it is an additional bit of merit that clearly doesn't make the person a BLP1E problem. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not on an RD level. It's almost inconsequential. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Alone, no, of course not. Just being an ambassador doesn't even assure meeting notability here. The reason this person's being nominated is because of his role in freeing the Iran hostages, major even of the late 20th century. The point about noting that he was an ambassador is that WP:BLP1E would not apply here even if you took the hostage crisis as a "single" event, because beyond being involved in that, he was also an ambassador. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No, not at all, being an ambassador is hardly relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements: While there is an unsourced paragraph, it is about the history of the Iran hostage situation and is not controversial. That said, I feel this articles doesn't do a sufficient job at explaining Taylor's role in the rescue, and the fact there is more about Argo than the actual event is a weakness to this article. I recognize we have other articles that cover the rescue effort in full but more can definitely be brought into this one. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose like Abductive, this appears that he's notable for just one event, indeed there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who have done similar things, who just don't get the publicity via Hollywood. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Or maybe he got the attention of Hollywood because his actions far exceed those of a typical diplomat? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as meeting DC2. A notable historic figure and important to his field(ambassadors). Article does need improvement as stated but not many ambassadors become notable in the way he did. Death being covered in many places. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable historic figure. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An ambassadorship alone isn't RD material, but his role in the Iranian hostage crisis demonstrates his significant importance in his field of ambassadoring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's very little about the person or his career. The lead and main body of the article is about the hostage event, but that section is mostly about the films, not the person, and reads like a movie review. And what's not about the films, includes contradictory statements such as "CIA organized the rescue" and "let Taylor take the credit for political purposes." But as a bio it's missing too much. --Light show (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What he did made no real difference at all. Suppose he hadn't been there: Then there would have been 58 hostages instead of 52. The course of history would not have been altered. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ask the six people who got out if it made a real difference. Aside from the personal aspect, it greatly solidified US-Canada relations. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
And harmed Canada–Iran relations. They didn't talk for years afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, but either way, he was notable as an ambassador for his role. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Very very famous Canadian and significant figure in on of the most significant foreign relations crises of the later 20th century. The subject of several movies.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A very famous figure in the 1980s diplomacy. cyrfaw (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Though the article might be ready, I doubt this has any real chance of being posted.--WaltCip (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Can you explain the purpose of your comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Why?--WaltCip (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Because it appears to add absolutely nothing to the decision-making process. While I'm used to this with you, I'd like you to explain to the rest of us why you would make such a comment. Of course, you don't need to, that would be typical too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment while, unlike WaltCip, I believe this will just get the free pass, it's worth commenting on some of the above. I'm reading "very very famous", but that doesn't equate to anything encyclopedic. I'm reading "field of ambassadoring", what is that? So an ambassador was ambassadorial? Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands have been ambassadorial. Subject of movies? Not true, included in movies about a very specific political issue. Anyway, I'll put my hat, cat and mat on this being main page within 12 hours, so big dog deal, it's no longer important that this is English-language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - While Geoffrey Howe did not do any real significance during his role as Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister (until his resignation in protest), Taylor did something more heroic. And it's just an honorable mention. His obituary won't become a blurb or anything like that, right? George Ho (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: