This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic hurricane in a calendar year, leaves at least 15 people dead in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and the United States.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A violent storm system spawns at least one tornado killing two people and injuring seven others in the American state of Illinois and causing widespread damage especially in the small towns of Rochelle and Fairdale. (Chicago Tribune)
Law and crime
A gunman attacks the Palace of Justice in Milan, killing three people, including a judge. A fourth person found dead at the scene apparently died from a heart attack. (AP)(The Telegraph)
A fire on April 1 that disrupted power and internet access throughout London is now suspected to have been part of a robbery at the Hatton Garden Safe Deposit Company. (The Register)
A gunfight erupts between Afghan soldiers and U.S. soldiers working for NATO's Resolute Support Mission leaving 1 Afghan and 1 U.S. soldier dead, and 3 Afghan and 2 U.S. soldiers wounded. (Reuters)
At the Dragon Aromatics chemical plant in Fujian in southeast China, a fourth tank of about 1,500 tonnes of liquid hydrocarbon catches fire and explodes. More than 14,000 residents have been evacuated. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Significant event, result of the trial. The sentencing hasn't happened yet but its basically a question of whether its life in prison or a death penalty, that's not going to have as much significance as this point. MASEM (t) 18:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article updates: Huge news in the U.S. with significant international implications. The end of a long, bloody, high-profile legal saga centered on an act of terrorism. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: This is the least surprising verdict in recorded history. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until after sentencing, which is at least slightly less preordained? Or is it a pretty solid long-standing principle that we post when the verdict is announced if we post at all? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but in this case, and certainly in the case of United States justice, a death sentence could just as easily equate to thirty years on death row followed by a pardon. In other words, the sentence (I think) is somewhat irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it wasn't a question of him being charged, but to what degree, and if any of the charges would be death sentence-able. The fact all thirty changes were affirmed is more the "news maker" in the case. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a federal case? Not so much. The defense appears less interested in appeal and more about assuring the sentence will be something that doesn't involve death row. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although Floq's comment makes a good point. Finding him "officially" guilty is a major milestone in the case. Federal death sentences are rare, so a separate entry for that could be warranted, whenever it might happen, and IF they decide for execution. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The penalty phase in complex death penalty cases often takes weeks. If he is sentenced to death, it will almost certainly require a whole new blurb if that is to be posted. Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, the inhumane "death penalty" system of the US means that the individual could wait 30 years to be executed. By then, this will be a tiny glitch in the terrorism news network. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The verdict was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The real news, and it will be ITN worthy whichever way it goes, will be the sentencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They can also result in someone being put to death. Per CRYSTAL we don't know what will or won't happen and we don't operate on "maybes." Federal death sentences are fairly rare. Even if this turns out to be a case of "life in prison and we really mean it," that's for the courts to resolve over time. All we can do is report that he was sentenced to death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already said that it could be a death penalty, but that is usually delayed by months, years and sometimes even commuted to life. The difference in sentencing is somewhat irrelevant. A "maybe" is "even if sentenced to death, will it ever happen?". The only actual fact is that he's been found guilty. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he is sentenced to death that will be a fact. The issue of how long it takes to carry out the sentence, or not, is really not relevant. But again we are wondering onto CRYSTAL territory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand. Being sentenced to death doesn't mean that the death penalty is carried out. It is relevant. The sentencing here is irrelevant because of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, no one doubted he would be charged to some degree, even considering the actions he did during the manhunt after the bombing. What is the news maker element here is that he has been found guilty on all thirty counts, showing there was no doubt (from the legal side) this was premeditated act of violence committed by the brothers. Also keep in mind, this is at the federal level, and thus there's very little room for appeal, and it seems the lawyer representing Tsarnaev is more now trying to keep him off death row, instead of appealing the decision. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the expedient of federal charges in such cases is that it allows the execution of a killer even in a state which itself does not have the death penalty. (Hence the rarity of federal capital cases, since almost all murder trials are held at the state level.) The course of this, and the fact that state prosecutors did not object to the feds claiming jurisdiction, is quite clear. Reader interest exists now, waiting for the inevitable sentence of death is a disservice to those lloking to Wikipedia for comprehensive, neutral coverage. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many readers are really, really interested in the convictions of the brothers involved in the bombings? And when do readers care about neutral coverage nowadays? Readers can be also editors, including those inserting one-sided sources. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, ITN is not about being a news ticker but to highlight important topics that are of good quality that happen to be in the news. Both the Boston Marathon bombing and the Tsarnaev pages are in very decent shape, and the topic of exactly what Tsarnaev would be charged with in what was a very public event is definitely of interest. All factors fit the purpose of ITN. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how people explain how ITN works, we've already seen such news topics that are already found elsewhere (especially on Internet), but at least Uzbekistani elections is worth featuring. If Wikipedia and ITN existed twenty years ago, OJ Simpson's acquittal of his wife's and her fiancé's murders would have been in the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Appeal will be filed in no time. Meanwhile, Boston Marathon bombings aren't much as impactful as the press wants it to be. Why weren't many oil spills in the news lately? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convictions are typically when postings are made; if this is overturned on appeal(which seems unlikely) that would be notable itself. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ho's comments should be discounted - they are contrarian and absurd - suggesting that we not post this conviction because "oil spills". We will most certainly post the next oil spill that ends in five deaths, 29 critical injuries, 264 hospitalizations, and 16 people with lost limbs, not to mention other types of maiming. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind oil spills, a bad comparison. I'll rephrase: I can't understand the agreement toward the bombing event as part of Main Page and the opposition toward other convictions as just mere local impacts. Are there any other convictions that are or are not ITN-qualified? --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is unlikely to be an appeal of the convictions themselves, as the defense attorney himself declared Tsarnaev's "guilt" in his opening statement. It's the sentence that will likely be appealed, IF it's death. If life in prison, they wouldn't have much ground for appeal. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if the defense made improper proceedings, especially during a statement to the jury? Also, the suspect pled not guilty twice to all charges against him. Also, probably the defense could be incompetent. Not all court events are covered by media. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There will presumably be an appeal from the conviction based on the refusal to grant a change of venue, since the defense has already sought mandamus on this issue from the First Circuit at least twice. The appeal is unlikely to succeed, given that the First Circuit denied both petitions (albeit over a dissent), but it will surely be filed. However, this is just a response to the question asked above; I don't see that it is especially relevant to posting or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put it that way exactly. We've seen same ol' voters on every nomination, but same ol' is better than none, right? Well, every news is front news-worthy, but I don't know why some stories that have split votes were posted in the first place. The bombings was featured once in the ITN. However, at the time of nomination, voters were split, but the administrators decided to post it anyway. The bombings were devastating but not as devastating as wars and attacks on skyscrapers. Even an "official" conviction is not front news-worthy because of the enthusiasm on the topic and subtopics. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read that ITNC - the opposes were wanting to make sure there was stable information instead of just rumor -mongering or hype. It quickly revealed it wasn't, and that it wasn't an accident. But remember we're not covering news, we're covering topics that happen to be decent articles and that happen to be in the news. With the original bombing (which I remember helping to keep the article at its initial stages), the article quickly came together, avoided rumors and the like until official reports were issued, and represents a case where WP does a good job where multiple editors come together to keep an article on a breaking event both useful and objective. In the present case of the conviction, the bombing article is fairly complete and the suspect's as well, and it is in the news, and it is a case that has international interest, so there's little reason to oppose. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying rumors or anything like that. I did say an appeal might happen, but I wasn't implying that a conviction wasn't official. As for quality of the article, a story may have a chance when its article is decent and stable. However, I'm not keen on the conviction itself. The bombings may have affected the lives, but the conviction itself is not as impactful as the bombing itself. People would praise the conviction, but I don't give a damn because I got other things to worry about. Also, I wonder if the bombing was an inside job. As for international interest, showing the bombings coverage throughout the world was enough, especially on Wikipedia. Besides a Russian and an American, why should a Brit, an Aussie, a New Zealander, and a Canadian on Wikipedia be very keen on the conviction of the suspect? They worry more about their own domestic issues and are too busy to care about international affairs. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with user:Ad Orientem. This was never in doubt in the slightest, so is not really interesting news. Thue (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The World Health Organisation estimates that 560 people have died, more than 1,700 people have been injured and more than 100,000 people have fled their homes following the intensification of fighting three weeks ago. (AP via Virginia Gazette)
Disasters and accidents
Following the deployment of 350 police, over 600 firefighters and over 400 soldiers, the fire at the Dragon Aromatics chemical plant in Zhangzhou (southeast China) restarts, forcing the evacuation of residents within a radius of 18km from the plant. (South China Morning Post)
Raiders using specialist cutting equipment break into an underground vault in the Hatton Garden Safe Deposit company in the London diamond district and empty 300 safety deposit boxes. (Daily Mail)
Clear consensus to oppose posting to ITN at this time. Does not rise to the level of inclusion on ITN. Nakon05:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose yet another shooting in America, sadly means absolutely nothing once again, not to mention the shooter is "charged" and not "convicted". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily due to timing as we typically wait for convictions. While it is incorrect to say it means absolutely nothing, it isn't the top racial issue in America right now; quick action likely prevented this from blowing up into something big. It is significant that action was taken so quickly on this matter in South Carolina. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is huge news in America, especially because it is shown on tape. (Also, the lawyer has announced the accused admits he shot the victim, but is arguing self-defense, so waiting for conviction is not necessary as long as we say "charged with".) In addition to the state murder charge, it might also warrant a federal civil-rights trial. But at this point, the simple facts are that this is an unpremeditated killing and it will have to go far beyond the current tabloid stage of development for consideration. Even then, it wouldn't necessarily be broadly encyclopedic enough to merit featuring in ITN. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: regardless of the scale (state, national, international) that this is reaching, the man has only been charged with murder. He has not been convicted, nor sentenced. That is reason alone to oppose any criminal case. We didn't report on the 30 federal charges being laid against Dzokhar Tsarnaev but waited for his conviction to even bring up debate. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the benefit of the doubt lies with the suspect, not the state. Acting as an agent of the state, a police officer should have to defend himself in court on some charge. That being said, while I don't agree your rationale merits posting the nomination, and I don't doubt the real rate of murder by police officers is not reflected in convictions, I'd like to see some statistical evidence, if you have it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal challenge, I am genuinely curious (and personally have highly mixed feelings about the police), and have asked at the ref desk. Our categories are a horrible source, since they depend entirely on the creation of articles based on the subjective interest of editors. I meant something more scientific, a peer-reviewed study. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a bad situation topping other issues of police + public relations in the states, but it is ultimately a story involving only 2 people and immediately family and co-workers. If this instigated riots or the like at a large scale (and remember: we didn't post Ferguson) then that might be something. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I will grant that the mens NCAA has the popularity for blurb from earlier, but the womens' NCAA, while it is followed to an even greater degree of excitement by a number of fans, has nowhere near the breadth or coverage of the mens. So this should not be posted. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is evidence of exactly what I said was going on in the earlier blurb posting. If one must be posted, why not incorporate this one into that blurb? RGloucester — ☎13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Combined blurb per WaltCip and RGloucester. If as a result we need to remove mention of the MOP for brevity, that would be fine. Mamyles (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb: It's just wrong to exclude the women's basketball tournament because it happened a day after the men's tournament. I can't fathom that the intent to exclude it here would be misogynistic, but it would have the unacceptable appearance of such to many readers. Furthermore, there is ample precedent for combined blurbs; major tennis tournaments, for instance, usually have the women's singles final a day before the men's singles final, and the blurb typically names both champions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to post the men's but not the women's would be that the women's receives less attention, including in television ratings (though I'm not sure of the numbers). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull immediately. The bold article linked doesn't even mention the women's final in prose, it's not written in the correct tense and it's barely above stub quality. Shambolic. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to say support or oppose, but just <facepalm>. Geno Auriemma ties the record for most championships in NCAA history, and not even a mention...despite being in an era where we are trying to recruit female editors. I wonder how many championships he has to record before he gets an ITN mention? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complete joke when we can't figure out how to post something because it's too long. Thank God civilization isn't dependent on Wikipedia inventing the wheel. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The women's tournament certainly draws less interest than the men's. The UConn coach's tenth championship is a major achievement which is at least as much the real story as the game itself. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The women's tournament does not get the attention of the men's tournament (rightly or wrongly) so I understand not posting it for that reason, but I am not against posting it as a combined blurb, but only if it can be short331dot (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But your comment doesn't mention article quality at all. Have you even noticed that it was posted with no update, with incorrect tenses, with dabs, and barely beyond stub quality? I'd like to know because assessing consensus includes assessing the ability of commentators to address article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it had been pulled I didn't think it necessary to further comment on quality. As I said, I don't disagree with anything that you said regarding the article quality and I agree with the pulling. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I could possibly be "digging myself deeper" on something which my only previous comment was "Um, the article isn't really updated adequately." There is absolutely no evidence being an American story had anything to do with the too rapid posting, that is quite simply an assumption by you. No one knows Jayron's motive, including you. Maybe he didn't even have one and simply made a mistake. Human beings do that from time to time you know... What there actually is evidence of is that a desire to combat gender bias motivated "support" !votes - several of them explicit say they supported for equality reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, as I said [citation needed]. Just cool it down and let's try to stop posting super crap articles to the main page. I don't care for the reasons, because all of them are flawed when we post crap quality articles, like ones without any updates and ones written in the wrong tense and ones without suitable referencing. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I agree we shouldn't be posting inferior articles and was the first person to point out this one was posted too quickly. Not sure why you think I am disagreement on that point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As with far too many threads on this page, this discussion has become bitterly contentious and tangential at best to the ITN candidate in question. If this were a forum, which it is not, I might even don my acid-washed jeans and call it a "flame war". Can we step back, take another look at WP:CIVIL, and be a little nicer, please? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For the most part, the world generally doesn't care about women's team sports. It's not ITN's job to make them care, and it's a mistake to piggyback this on the men's championship in the interest of gender equality. For better or worse, the two aren't even in the same universe in terms of popularity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article is now significantly improved from the state it was posted (and pulled) at. I would say its now right around the minimum quality expected and withdraw my implicit objection. Thank you SusanLesch for your efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I support posting a combined blurb, but I suggest leaving Wisconsin and Notre Dame out of it to keep it brief. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to leave out the team names (i.e. just "Duke defeats Wisconsin") which I suppose wasn't done for ENGVAR reasons initially, but would substantially shorten the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about if ITN were to have a separate little section about sports? Then you could have major events such as the NCAA's, soccer championships, canoe races, and all manner of stuff, and hopefully avoid some of these debates. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose everything, even a combined blurb this may not be politically correct, but nobody really cares about women's college basketball. Combatting gender bias is the only reason to post this, and, last I checked, ITN doesn't exist to combat gender bias. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American historian who successfully fought for the release of President Richard Nixon's secret tapes related to the Watergate scandal. Bruzaholm (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Major influence in comedy and media, definitely would be considered a leader in this area from that time period. Inducted in the Nat'l Radio Hall of Fame. MASEM (t) 21:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reading the page he seems to meet the criteria. I don't see any glaring quality issues but other eyes might want to judge it. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality grounds. Between a third and half the text is unreferenced at current and the lead doesn't summarize the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait it's a great article, he makes the criteria, except for the fact that it has dozens of claims, even paragraphs that lack refernces. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for prompt posting. I think the article is in relatively good condition for its subject-matter. It would obviously be desirable to have additional referencing, but I don't see any content that is controversial or actually disputed. There is importance to posting a significant "recent death" while it is actually still recent. That doesn't, of course, mean that there isn't a minimum quality threshold to be applied to such an article, but I feel that considering this article as substandard for the purpose, and the tag that is currently defacing the article, are arbitrary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's nonsense. There are whole sections without a single reference, let alone the many other paragraphs completely unreferenced. How you can even suggest an article is in "relatively good condition" when we don't even know if over half it is actually factually accurate (which we normally do using reliable sources, which are woefully bereft here) is beyond me entirely, but not surprising to see such urgency attached by you to this "type" of RD nomination. If it helps, we can remove part of the maintenance tag relating to under-referencing and I can tag all those clauses which aren't referenced individually. Or perhaps, being such an ardent supporter, you can actively improve the article yourself, rather than just claim the perfectly reasonable and very standard request for adequate referencing is "defacing the article". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - with a article that technically still falls into BLP, we should have a minimum sourcing of one cite per paragraph, as previously discussed at WT:ITN. There's no serious claims, I agree, but we want to make sure the article is sufficiently a good example of how to source and cite for new editors to help build on, hence the need for proper referencing. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I write on Wikipedia is "nonsense," though you are free to disagree with me. If we made a list of the English Wikipedia's top eight thousand problems, articles like Stan Freberg aren't one of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you really. You're trying, once again, to push a really poorly referenced article onto the main page because it's a one of those recurring topics you pop by here to try to advocate without worrying about quality. Your claim that the tags are "arbitrary" really is nonsense. It's stating the article needs an improved lead, check, and that it's woefully under-referenced, check. I can add [citation needed] to the unreferenced claims if you prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has thirty-eight in-line citations and a dozen external links. For an article about a comedian and advertising writer, that is not "really poorly referenced" by any standard bearing upon the English Wikipedia that exists today, as opposed to the English Wikipedia that ideally might exist in a perfect world or that we might aspire to develop several years from now. It is not the case that every sentence of every article is inline cited, or should be inline cited, or ever will be inline cited; nor has any other encyclopedia in the history of the planet earth aspired to such a standard; nor is the period of a couple of days following an individual's death a reasonable time-frame within which an article could be improved to such a standard. I am all for better sourcing and more referencing of any page, and I even understand holding up an ITN or RD posting pending article improvements, but not when the level of improvement that is being demanded is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the fact that you start some kind of futile rebuttal with a count of citations is truly enlightening. There's a WHOLE SECTION without a single citation, and multiple paragraphs with nothing either. Your response equates to other crap exists and we don't post crap to the main page. Unlucky. And please, what's "unreasonable" about asking you, an ardent supporter of this article, to actually do something about its appalling referencing? Time to stop driving by to support your pet favourites and actually step up and do something practical, helpful and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Your lame parallel claiming I'm looking for a utopian article is embarrassing, I'm actually asking for a bare minimum of references, this stuff is going onto the homepage of the fourth most visited website in the universe. I know you really love these RDs that you drive-by and attempt to create a mandate to post, but I think, at some point, you've lost sight of what we're trying to do here, especially if you think it unreasonable to ask for a single reference in an entire section of a BLP. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is woefully unreferenced. Many of the claims are simply unsupported, period. While we do usually allow primary sources to support credited roles if there is a link to the primary source's article, or full information like title or episode number and date of release, there are many claims of the sort "he made appearances on this show" which don't have a link or identify a specific episode. Those need secondary references. I have tagged the first and third parts of the article to make clear which claims are unsupported.
Nominator's comments: Historically, the NCAA basketball tournament was a contentious nomination (roughly 50/50 support/oppose). It was posted some years and not posted others. Last year that changed due to a better explanation of why it is important and was posted with near unanimous support. Here is a recap of my argument:
extremely long discussion of now moot point
The only true significance any sport has is that which people assign to it. In the United States, the NCAA tournament is the 3rd most watched sporting event - ahead of the NBA finals and 12 other US events we post. It terms of cultural impact, only the Super Bowl is obviously ahead of the tournament; it is on par with the World Series and the Kentucky Derby; and is miles ahead of things like the US Opens, the NASCAR points championship, and the New York Marathons. (By cultural impact I mean, is talked about/followed by people who rarely watch the sport or even sports in general.) We should strive to post the sporting events of the greatest cultural impact, not necessarily the "highest level" competitions (although often the two are the same). That is what the NCAA tournament is - an event of huge cultural significance. I realize America's interest in University-level sports is strange to most non-Americans, but I kindly ask you to try to see things from our prospective (and if you must complain about US-bias in sports, I suggest targeting a competition of much less importance to America than NCAA basketball.)
Additionally, two arguments sometimes offered in opposition are false. The tournament does lots of receive coverage outside the United States (as demonstrated in previous years, original reporting on it is published around the globe). Basketball is not a "minority sport" internationally - most estimates place it either second or third in global popularity. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect - oppose per the reasons listed in the nomination. It was, currently is, and always will be a University-level sport - and to be clear, I would oppose posting the Boat Race events as well, but I understand that those universities are on somewhat of a different level.--WaltCip (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a university sport that gets the same or more attention than the NBA Finals. Given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, it is all but a professional sport. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fact that non-Americans really wish this wasn't a big deal doesn't have weight. It is the third biggest sporting event in the U.S. (after the Super Bowl and the NCAA Football Championship, another event people don't want to post). The measure should be "how much people care" and not "how much we want people to care". The championship game is almost always the most watched basketball game in the U.S., and will be again this year. "But it's a university sport, it SHOULDN'T be that popular" doesn't sound much like an actionable oppose here. --Jayron3201:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support by ThaddeusB's reasoning. This is a MAJOR sporting event in the U.S., even though some people can't seem to understand why this "university-level sport" is on par with or more important than certain professional sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the explanation given. I actually don't follow it- but whether this should be a big deal or not is irrelevant; it is a big deal despite being "university level" and it gets more attention than many professional sports, even as much or more than the NBA Finals. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will continue to work on it (and welcome suggestions), but the article is now nicely updated and should meet ITN standards in that regard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I could swear I had pushed for inclusion of EuroBasket, a championship that certainly has a bigger profile in Europe than, say Six Nations, on the list some years ago... Euroleague's still there though. –HTD11:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a majority of English-speakers in the world... Which would make it a big deal on English-language wiki. Your boat race is even less important.Correctron (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LoveToLondon: As stated above, objections related to something being from a particular country are not valid. This isn't being proposed as an ITNR event so that's not relevant; and if you feel something is missing from being posted or the ITNR list, please nominate it. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something being only a national youth competition of a professional sports is a very valid objection. Please bring any non-US example where both the national adults and the national youth championship from the same country have been featured at ITN in the same year. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what I said was an invalid argument- but this isn't a "youth championship". 331dot (talk)
Interest in US youth sports is very marginal in Europe. If you disagree, please bring a RS how many people watched this game live in France, UK and Germany. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interest in rugby and cricket very marginal in the U.S., Latin America and most of the Far East but doesn't prevent them from being posted. –HTD12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim it was the most watched event or even highly watched in Europe, but you said that there was "nearly no coverage outside that country" which isn't true. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also news in Australia. Clearly it is getting coverage elsewhere even at a minimal level. Respectfully, I really don't know how you can say it isn't. 331dot (talk)
I also don't know how you use the term "youth" but in the US it typically means people less than 18 years old, very few if any of which play college basketball. This isn't considered a "youth" tournament in the US. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The players in the 2015 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (that even serves as a qualifier for the Olympics) are professional players, some of them earning millions every year. Whatever term you prefer, this is also a tournament for young players that is inferior to the regular championships and won't make it to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA isn't a "youth tournament". A "youth tournament" is a tournament, like your example, restricted to a certain age group. The NCAA is open to all ages. If a 30 year old player doesn't want to earn money but still play while having a "college education", it's perfectly legal for him to do so. Either way, if the UEFA Under-21 Championship is the third most popular tournament in Europe (I'd say the Europa League is more popular), then we could equate it to NCAA basketball. Is it? –HTD12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I used the page views for 2013, the last time both tournaments were held on the same year:
With all due respect, a comment calling NCAA sports "a youth tournament" is so woofully ignorant, that it can easily be ignored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that despite all these years of discussing it, certain Brits simply don't understand its importance, because they don't have a comparable level. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Strong oppose as this is not something which has significance in the world of sport and doesn't seem to attract people globally. Most of the supporters above rely on facts that it's a major news in the United States, it has broken multiple television records or it's of particular relevance to the English-speaking world but avoid to mention how this game has made global impact for attracting people to practice college basketball on professional level. We comment on the same nomination every year but it continues to be practiced chiefly in the United States with not even a sign that one day it may be introduced and become popular in other countries. And for the matter of clarity, we don't oppose this because we have something against the United States, the American people or the American culture; it's simply because the world doesn't accept the "significance" of college basketball and remains out of its "impact". That's it. Some may argue that stories concerning a single country could have global impact to a lesser extent, but it's completely not true as we've posted such stories with much greater impact in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some in the world don't see the impact, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are probably many things that are posted(as well as things on the ITNR list, as an example) that I don't get the impact for, but I still support their posting because I know that others see it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it exists, then please prove it. College basketball is played for decades and we don't see even a tiny progress in its acceptance or its growing popularity outside the United States. And your argument that we should post this because of some precedent with other things is poorly a desparate evidence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, college basketball and volleyball is widely popular in the Philippines, but focus is on local teams, not on the US teams. I dunno about Canada, but it seems the US NCAA tournament is more popular than their own CIS. Some national basketball teams also have players from US (in cases of African national teams) and local (South Korea, of all places) college teams on their rosters. –HTD11:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) ThaddeusB explained it far better than I could. I wasn't suggesting precedent as an argument, simply making the point that every event has people who don't understand the impact or significance of it, and very little would be posted if that was a widespread justification. There is no requirement that this or any event be wildly popular outside where it comes from, and we in fact discourage such arguments on this page. I could probably pick out five ITNR events right now(just as examples) that get little coverage outside their home countries but are still posted. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB did a great deal explaining the importance of a college sport in the United States and how it could become one of the most popular sporting events in the country but he didn't explain why the college basketball teams in other parts of the world are considered amateur teams that play for recreational purposes and why their games are not even covered in the media. We can make a nice parallel in looking for the reasons why the United States national basketball teams (both men's and women's) dominate over the rest of the world and the quality of college basketball might be even greater than the professional leagues in other countries. Nevertheless, we probably live in a world where people are not interested in further investing in basketball to bridge the gap between the United States and the rest of the world and that's why the popularity of college basketball will never grow on the same level. Some may say that we, the Europeans, and the people from other parts of the world are ethnocentric or have very low regard to the American culture but, trust me, it's just an inherent image that comes out because of the failure of college basketball to succeed in other countries and the lack of feasibility found for further investment in the sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why college-level sports don't prosper in many places is because athletes who should be playing for a university would rather turn pro early and earn money, something that can't happen with the NBA still having their minimum age for draft eligibility. So in the case of the U.S., the only way in to the NBA is via the college game. This is not to say youth-level basketball isn't popular in many countries, they probably are, but the players are either riding the bench on "first squads" of the pro teams, or are playing in the under-X age squads of said pro teams. –HTD11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason is historic rather than anything else. After all, college baseball and college hockey are relatively minor sports; player development in those sports happens primarily through junior leagues and professional minor leagues. Basketball and football were invented on U.S. University campuses by U.S. University students and/or professors, and were played by universities for DECADES before the pro game took off (college Basketball dates to the 1890s, the NBA was formed in the 1940s, for example). The best analogy I can give for their popularity is the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby League (an imperfect analogy, but close). Historically, Rugby Union developed first among amateur players (incedentally, on University campuses), and maintain a level of forced amateurism until only about 20 years ago. Being the older form of the sport, it historically had a greater following, even though it wasn't "professional". Rugby League has always been professional, and (except in certain geographic pockets) has always had less popularity than its older, more established, form. In the U.S., a similar relationship exists between the NCAA (amateur) basketball and the NBA (pro) basketball. --Jayron3213:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kiril was wondering why college sports isn't that prominent elsewhere, not why college sports is prominent in the U.S. Elsewhere, people can rally behind a local team on the lower divisions. While there's some equivalent minor leagues in the US, like you said, due to historical factors, universities became the "rallying points" of locales which don't have a "top division" team in the U.S. –HTD14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, college basketball has made significant in roads globally. As recently as say 15 years ago, it was very rare for a team to have even a single foreign born player on its roster. Now, most teams have at least one and many teams have multiple foreign players. NCAA basketball is viewed as a great opportunity to get a free education or develop a player to play professionally later (depending on the level of athlete and country of origin), so athletes from all over the world come to play in the NCAAs. This doesn't happen to the same degree in other NCAA sports.
I realize this may not be exactly what you meant - you perhaps meant development of local teams with local players to be watched on TV. However, it still demonstrates an significant international impact of the game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement oppose Sigh, must we go through this again. No, of course we shouldn't post it. However you twist and turn it, it's only a university competition, with no major impact (cue all the 'explanations' on how I'm wrong). I think I might nominate the Cardff-Swansea Varsity later this month, see how that one goes down. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the "Cardiff-Swansea varsity" is, but if it is equivalent to this tournament which has more viewership than professional level basketball, and is all but professional basketball given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, I would be happy to support it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in light of the huge interest and passion the tournament generates. Thaddeus is right - sport does not have inherent significance; it only has the significance we invest it with by following it and caring about it. The fact that it is a university tournament is neither here nor there when it comes to that significance. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A professional national league for adults where some of the regular season games are being watched live by up to half a billion people worldwide[6] was recently rejected at ITNR. How many people did watch this youth basketball game? LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Major [citation needed] there. La Liga matches are not watched live by 500 million people and the champion was posted last year on ITN. Very likely, it will posted again this year come May when the season ends. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now pissed that the push for the removal of the Irish hurling championship from the list was successful. Now I could only cite Gaelic football lol. Thank goodness the boat race -- which isn't even a championship (think of it as the British version of the annual Harvard vs. Yale football game, only if both schools got the best recruits in the country) -- made it. –HTD11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Boat Race is the most well-known rowing event in the world, even the World Championships didn't make it to ITNR. Some of the people here also seem to fail to notice the difference between amateur sports and national youth championship of a professional sports. What amateur sports are relevant enough for ITN is a question completely separate from whether national youth championships should be posted at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the global audience of the NCAA tournament is significantly greater than the global audience of The Boat Race. For example, Canada is one of the top "secondary" markets for both and NCAA basketball wins that battle easily. From a UK perspective, basketball is a very minor sport, but in most of the world it is in the top 3 or so of popularity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the global audience of the boat race is somewhere in the range of 800 million, with 6 million in the UK (that means it needs 794 million eyeballs elsewhere to approach 800 million. I dunno how the math works but it's true!).
This isn't a garden variety "youth competition"; players are recruited, they are essentially paid by giving them scholarships, teams have large fan bases, and the event generates tens of millions in revenue and is more watched than the professional level of sports. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is more popular than the NBA, then get the NBA final removed from ITNR first. Two national championships from the same sports in the same country is too much for ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a onetime resident of Lexington, Kentucky, let me say that there already has been far too much wordage * expended on NCAA BKB. Sca (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is a significant sporting championship, around 40 million people watched this game. The entire tournament cost $1.9 billion in lost productivity [7]. It's unclear why this wouldn't be in the ITN. Shiny Son (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The measure here is how many people watch US college basketball worldwide. American football, for instance, despite being popular primarily in the US, is in ITN as a globally recognizable mainstay of local culture and national sport. I'm not sure whether college basketball rises to the same level among non-Americans. NBA finals and FIBA Basketball World Cup would suffice. Brandmeistertalk13:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base the assertion that "the measure here is how many people watch" worldwide? If that's the measure, we could jettison probably 75% of ITNR and not post a great deal of ITN nominations. I don't think there is any requirement of a worldwide audience, just worldwide coverage, which this has. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the nomination, you can see the news reports from Le Monde, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. I'm sure you could find many other non-US news outlets covering this. It's basically a professional-level championship, despite the university-level players. Shiny Son (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or they might include it because they think their readers are interested in it. That's just speculation. There are many ways to rationalize and diminish the news coverage of any event. It's not being a newspaper to have a posting about a top watched sports event with international players that people in many places are interested in or want to learn more about. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying every NCAA sport should be posted; basketball and football are different from other NCAA sports in that regard; they both get far more coverage and attention than the other sports. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be blown out of proportions. Will Duke University be remembered for fostering a college basketball champion in the long run? How all those teams would perform against national basketball teams? Like many other sports, basketball ultimately comes down to international competition. Media are naturally alowed not to ask such questions. Brandmeistertalk15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duke University has already been known for a long time for its excellent basketball program ever since Mike Krzyzewski took over. International competition in basketball is actually hotly contested, but it's the US that always wins, so it's not that popular when a full-strength US team is playing. That's why European championships are more hotly contested than things such as the FIBA World Cup because you can't be sure on who'd win. The Olympics are a different matter because the best players, who are too tired to play after the 82-game NBA regular season to play in continental and world championships, actually show up. Incidentally, two of the best five players in the 2012 FIBA Under-17 World Championship are from Duke, and another one is the "most outstanding player" in this tournament. Coincidentally, the coach of the senior US team is Krzyzewski who fixed things up in the senior national team and only has one competitive loss to his name in nine years. –HTD16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Yes, the highest prize in international basketball, the one players actually care about, isn't on ITNR, and is the toughest sell here on ITN. The Boat Race is a lot easier to post than the Olympics. –HTD16:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - last year's tournament (this year's figures aren't available yet), was watched by ~102 million people on TV across 165 countries and broadcast in 5 languages. An additional 10 million people streamed at least one game online. [8]. Incidentally, 100 million was the figured offered as to The Boat Race's global audience when it was added to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this whole tournament had only a fourth of the number of viewers that each of El Clásico games has (there are at least 2 El Clásico per season, often 4 or more). The Boat Race is the most important event in its sports, the NCAA championship is only the second-ranking national championship in one country. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand where this La Liga comparison is coming from. ITN posted La Liga last year without much issue. ITN also posted Copa del Rey last year(?) too (with some controversy). Last year's NCAA basketball championship was posted quickly (HAHA). This isn't an ITNR nomination. Both NCAA basketball and La Liga aren't in ITNR, and were posted last year despite not being listed there. –HTD14:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Boat Race is most certainly not the highest level of rowing. The sport does have world championships, you know. Most other sports we list are also not the highest level as regional and international tournaments/world championships exist. If you only posted the true highest level of any given sport, that would mean World Cup only for football. No one would make such a argument for football, which is why we list 9 football events on ITNR (and often post Bundesliga & la Liga as well, making 11 total). Basketball, arguably the world's second most popular sport, lists three: FIBA World Championships, NBA Finals, and Euroleague. NCAA basketball has often been posted, making 4 possible. NCAA basketball is more popular in the US than any of the others, and likely more popular globally than all but the NBA (these things are really hard to compare precisely as audience figures are not readily available). In terms of cultural impact, there is no comparison - NCAA basketball wins easily. In terms of quality of play, NCAA basketball perhaps outranks Euroleague despite one being professional and the other nominally amateur. Several sports less popular than basketball globally have more than 4 ITNR listings (Golf - 6, Horse Racing - 5, Marathon Running - 4, Motorsport - 8, Rugby - 5). Several sports have multiple US entries, so that is not a disqualifier either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that the Euroleague has overtook the NCAA in quality of play ever since the 1988 Olympics where grown men from the Soviet Union beat US college kids. From 1936 to 1976, US college kids beat the grown men from other countries all of the time except for that crazy game in Munich (Americans boycotted in 1980 (Soviets lost lol), and the Americans won in home court in 1984). In a random preseason game where both teams are sleepwalking throughout the game, a Euroleague champion can beat the NBA champion. –HTD15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right - it is very hard to say for sure. Certainly, the average Euroleague team is better than the average NCAA team - there are 350 NCAA teams after all. I'm not so sure the top NCAA teams aren't better than the top Euroleague teams though. My counter-argument would be from top teams, 2-4 starters go to the NBA and the remaining starters and top reserves end up split between European leagues and the D-league (minus the few who choose not to pursue the sport further when they realize they won't make the NBA). That implies the best college teams are somewhere between a bad NBA team and a good Euroleague team. Granted, all those players continue to develop after they leave college, and the Euro teams also attract good players who never went to American college, so the Euroleague team is obviously better than the comparison implies. Overall, I would say there isn't a huge difference between an average Euroleague team and a top 20 NCAA team. NCAA teams are allowed an overseas preseason trip every four years, so I could look up how NCAA teams have done in exhibitions against Euroleague teams, but I don't put much stock in such "sleep walking" matches as you call them. A team of college All-Stars even beat the original Dream Team in exhibition game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This event has a significant amount of news attention and a significant number of viewers/fans. The article is well-written and updated. (This may not be the most notable sporting event in the world, but there is still a great deal of coverage and fanbase for it. There is a quality article - why not post?) Mamyles (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although not vehemently, for the reasons given by other supporters above. In any event, could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus relatively soon, before we lose the element of timeliness. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As with all news that gets distributed by some news agencies, you will always find some places where this gets (re)printed. How many percent of the news sources you link to have that on their frontpage? LoveToLondon (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except, these mostly aren't agency reprints, but rather original reporting (or at least original writing). Almost no sport gets front page coverage outside its local market. Are you suggesting we remove every sport outside of the Olympics and World Cup? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to qualify that comment. I meant the actual front page of general interest newspapers. In that sense, the NBA rarely is front page even in the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit war over the ready tag, but there is clearly consensus for posting; whether you like it or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu and I are hardly the only two supporters, active or otherwise. It's not just about number of supporters, but strength of arguments; virtually every oppose argument has been refuted. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who here is shouting; I'm not; nor is my goal to get you to "give up". My goal is to present and support logical, rational arguments. In this case, most of the oppose arguments have been demonstrated to not be accurate. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some very active opposers like you LoveToLondon. That is not the same as non-consensus. And with all due respect, someone with a very strong opinion and ~45 edits before today is hardly in a position to judge consensus accurately. Let's leave that to an uninvolved admin. Incidentally, the !vote count is actually 13-5 as my nomination is an implied support. 72% support almost always represents consensus; there would have to be a wide gap in the strength of arguments to override that level of support.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely nobody in the US cares about stuff like Formula 1, WRC, The Boat Race. The only sport event that Americans care about are the World Cup, Olympics and the Euro Championship. However, the former get posted even though a giant chunk of wiki readers don't care. I would rather have another sport event posted with 10+ live viewers than post another 20-something death terrorist bombing. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a huge institution with multi-billion dollar broadcasting rights, and coverage in Time Magazine, the International Business Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the highest overnight viewership rating in 18 years and a record 3.4 million live-streaming viewers. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Three quarters of the comments have been supportive, and many of them make an argument or offer evidence of large scale significance. The balance of the arguments at this time favors posting. The article itself is substantial and appears to be of reasonable quality. I didn't do anything with the player award or the picture, as that was only recently added to the nomination and hasn't been discussed much. In particular, the player photo is not of great quality (looking away from the camera with a shadow running across his face.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – Clear attempt at framing Wikipedia as an encylopaedia written from the hyper-masculine gaze. There is no justification for the inclusion of insignificant people running about in a room on the front page of the encylopaedia, especially given the very significant world events that are presently occurring and not listed. No lasting impact. RGloucester — ☎17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I praise you for your consistency, but that is a completely unrealistic expectation. There are other users here besides yourself all with their own visions. Systemic bias does not mean American items or even just sports items should be excluded from ITN. What you seem to want is a much larger battle than this one issue. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More systemic bias. You seem to have spoken as if money has something to do with encyclopaedic significance. No sport should be appearing here. RGloucester — ☎19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Money does have something to do with significance. It represent the economic and even cultural impacts of the sport. It's not called 'March Madness' for nothing. I understand that your view(no sports here) is sincerely held but the chance that you will gain consensus for that seems remote. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "hyper-masculine gaze"? RGIII, are you implying basketball fans are on the down-low? And how much did you spend to acquire "hyper-masculine gaze"? In the US, it costs at least four years and a couple hundred-thousand dollars. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shan't have consensus, I'm aware. I'm also aware that this is pure old boy's club systemic bias. Boat races, cricket matches, basketted balls, &c. No significance, and merely meant to promote the dominant societal gaze, which privileges such fripperies as worth more WP:WEIGHT than war and famine in wherever. RGloucester — ☎19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what is insignificant to you must of course be insignificant to everyone else? People also want to read about things other than death, disaster, destruction, and war now and then. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You speak as if there were such a thing as the individual. I disagree. There is one human consciousness, one meaning. The insignificance of these trifles is clear. People may well want to read about such events, but they should do so in the appropriate venue, preferably in a shadowy back-alley where no one else is required to view their seditious activities. This is an encylopaedia. We must be upright and proper. RGloucester — ☎19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we're in an old boy's club? Your philosophical beliefs are just that, your own, and not shared by everyone else- and the fact that you hold them doesn't give you any more weight than any other person here. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "my own", as I have no property. We are all proper to God and to each-other. Everything we are and ever will be is by default shared amongst the collective humanity. When I write "you", I mean it in the plural sense. I hail humanity. There is no "you" in the singular. Regardless, this is a digression. The matter of significance is clear. Oppose inclusion. RGloucester — ☎19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gul Ahmad Saeed is suspected in the killing of his fiancee and nine of her relatives in Pakistan, apparently because of opposition to his marriage. He also is a suspect in the murders, earlier this year, of his mother, father, brother, and sister-in-law. (NBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose ITN if this comes to a legal decision, but right now just an accusation, not appropriate ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And I demand a pay raise at work, and infrastructure improvements all across the United States. Doesn't make it any more likely to happen than if I didn't demand it, but the effect is about the same as Greece trying to pick at a 70 year old scab. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Any entity can demand whatever they wish; it only means something if they take action(a legal case, economic sanctions, etc.). If Greece does something to further their demand, OK. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: As there is nothing to indicate the significance of the timing of this demand, if there indeed any. (A cynic could say that the Germans have given them that much in bailout money over the last few years anyway) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Described by her NY Times obit as a "revered nightclub performer and actress widely regarded as the queen of cabaret". Seems to indicate importance in her field. Everymorningtalk02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One notable work, one award nomination and frankly, a forgettable career. Article is both short and orange-tagged for over two years. Doesn't meet RD criteria by a long shot. Challenger l (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no idea who this is, but the New York Times calls her a "legend" and "widely regarded as the queen of cabaret", which seem to be indicators of being at the top of her field. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not seem to meet the criteria as very important to her field; the judgement of one newspaper notwithstanding. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Ignoring the issue about poker being a major sport, I'm not seeing this guy as a leader in the field - he won a few but doesn't seem to have a long-running success outside a personality. But I also do worry that we'd include poker as a sport and thus a field of interest for ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Poker doesn't have to be a sport to be put on ITN, but I don't think this person was "very important" to the field. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality article, well referenced, worth highlighting on the main page. Very well known poker player. --Jayron3213:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is in excellent shape - reading over his article has me ambivalent about his notability. One of the top ten poker players according to PokerPlayer Magazine? I do not see any criteria to easily judge notability for poker players. Challenger l (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I went back and forth between weak support and weak oppose. I do remember seeing the Devilfish long long ago when I used to watch poker on TV during the poker boom, and he was often one of the featured players. I'd say he was at the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Devilfish may not have been among the best poker players in the world, but with all the TV coverage he got he was probably among the most well-known at his peak, which was also poker's peak. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Well-known celebrity dermatologist. Some measure of controversy surrounding his death (he had recently been parodied on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, which some reports suggest was a factor in his depression). Kudzu1 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both on importance and articl quality. Article really needs significant expansion to be a ITN and the CN tags removed. But more importantly, I don't see him being a leader in the field (if he had invented the botox practice that might be one thing but just being a practitioner on it to rich clients, not really). The death by apparent hanging is tragic, but this is not like Williams where the person was a household name across most of the world; this person is far too niche for RD. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Being famous doesn't equate to "very important" to the field. In the case of a doctor I would personally look for notable medical advancements or procedures attributed to them. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the physicians that made botox into a thing. The article looks like it would fit on a business card - very badly needs expansion before consideration for RD. Challenger l (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose death update is insufficient, not mentioning recent TV parody of him. Frankly, this would be a much smaller story in the press if it weren't for Martin Short, and that is not a basis for an ITN listing. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@LoveToLondon: It will get replaced by the next nomination to be posted, whether or not it is a sports event, as it is on the bottom. Events are replaced chronologically, not one-for-one. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, people. We could replace that cricket blurb with a tournament that is not in the highest level of its sport and is 100% amateur tomorrow. ***winks*** –HTD13:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The World Chess Championship is on the ITNR list, though I don't know if it means only the men's tournament, or both. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article mixes tenses and is poorly presented, it needs better referencing and the blurb may be misleading as there appears to be two women's world championships, so we should make it clear which one this is, should it be posted. There also appears to be no prose summary of the final matches whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending TRM's complaints being addressed. A world chess championship is obviously a notable international event, but we do need to make sure the article is in good shape before it goes up on the front page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TRM and Kudzu1. Article needs significant sourcing/writing improvement before posting but should be postable once fixed. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now hidden the unreferenced part and added FIDE-sourced final game summary, tenses appear to be fixed. Marking as ready, blurb may be modified. Brandmeistertalk20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing a final game summary. I am a little uneasy with simply hiding the (short) summary of the rest of the tournament though. Surely this can be referenced without much effort, which would be far preferable to pretended like the other 95% of the tournament before the final didn't exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- This year's tournament, as the women's world championship often is, was not worthy of being called a world championship. Just because it was declared by FIDE to be the world championship does not mean it was worthy of that status. Hou Yifan and Judit Polgar (the two best women in the world by a very large margin) did not enter, and the format was a very silly straight knockout style tournament. Also this is NOT ITN/R, only the World Chess Championship is and that refers to the very specific event that crowns the "world chess champion". Chess is not like other sports where there is a men's and women's championship, in chess there is an open championship and an unrelated women's championship, and women are free to enter the open championship. A better analogy would be poker, where the winner of the WSOP Women's only event would never be posted because can and sometimes do succeed in the actual main event. See Judith Polgar for example Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hou Yifan effectively declined participation voluntarily, not because of opposing, losing, prohibition or something. And FIDE is known for similar funny incidents, like back in 1993 when Kasparov broke away from FIDE, leading to the existence of two World Chess Championships, so I'd say it's not something extraordinary. Regardless of the format, this is still the top level of women's chess. The format of some other top-tier sports tournaments also changed. Brandmeistertalk21:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point Medeis. In chess there is no "men's world championship", there is a "World Chess Championship" which includes everyone and an unrelated "Women's World Chess Championship". Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two top players not participating hardly invalidates the tournament. We wouldn't refuse to post results from, say, Wimbledon just because Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic didn't compete. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose not even rated in the top three of wrestlers from New Zealand, so not convinced he meets the RD criteria. Article is okay, but also contains some unreferenced claims which would need to be sorted before posting if necessary. As an aside, it would be helpful for RD nominations to have some kind of intro blurb to explain why we should consider each individual for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvements: There's a lot of uncited information in the article, but he's a former champion wrestler and television producer and he certainly appears to have been a notable figure in his field. But there needs to be some work done on citations before the page is RD-ready. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Some of the people he "fought" are household names for those old enough to remember, even if, like me they didn't follow wrestling. The translation from choreographed bouts to TV production seems like a natural one, not a spectacular one. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak Oppose it's definitely in the news but to it seems like business as usual, a modernisation exercise that all large industrial or research facilities would undertake periodically. This happens to be a really big one, hence just a weak oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question. Is there a specific event regarding this drought that is motivating your nomination? We usually don't have long-term issues like this posted without some sort of specific event to hang our hat on, in terms of a blurb. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to clarify that for me as I cannot read Portuguese. I accidentally glossed over the Ongoing tag before so that does make a bit more sense to me, but Ongoing is meant for events that might have incremental developments that might not warrant postings on their own but do when all added together. Is there something like what California just did(with the water use reduction order)? 331dot (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's part of a long trend so it is very difficult to identify where ITN comes in. Contrast that to the story this week where California has instituted mandatory water usage reductions across the state to a degree of an historic first, which is a fixed point for ITN, though I would not recommend this for ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it covers a long-lasting event which may take several weeks, it may be more appropriate to consider this for a sticky. I, however, cannot figure out any significant consequence from it despite the fact it's deemed to be the worst drought in the last 80 years. We have to wait for anything serious to happen.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it just goes to show how biofuels have devastated both California and Brazil. As the water goes into agriculture plants, less water is available for hydroelectricity. This is a serious problem. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's really stretching original research and POV without souricng. It's a combination of many many many factors, both natural and manmade, across the board. But it's not something that instantly happened, and certainly can't be pinned on developing biofuels. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether biofuels/fossil-fuels/excessive irrigation/unsustainable agriculture/global warming/etc were the cause of the drought is only secondary concern. The proposed blurb is factual and contains no POV or original research. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, then in that case, given the three words, the year of the event, the location of the even and the designation of the event are indeed factual, and not POV nor OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Brazil, if there is not water, the electricity production through hydroelectric plants (most of the produced electricity in Brazil is hydroelectric) is reduced. It's a "domino effect". ArionEstar (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is questioning that the drought situation is severe and will have a domino effect if it worsens. But in considering what ITN is, this is simply a long-running story that is being highlighted now by a couple sources, but nothing has changed to make it ITN. There's certain metrics I could see, such as hypothetically Brazil declaring a national emergency due to water shortage levels, which would be a triggering event for ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Russia told Saudi Arabia to start an embargo on arms in Yemen, but Saudis refused (Reuters)[5][6]
Red Cross also really wants Saudi Arabia to pause the fighting so they can deliver goodies to victims (Reuters)(CNN)(BBC)(Al Jazeera)
Saudi Arabia has also been using "special forces" [7][8][9]
Saudi Arabia has donated a lot of weapons, including RPGs, to people in Yemen (Globe&Mail)(Reuters)|action=history}} history] · [{{fullurl:Talk:Stuff in Yemen
Russia told Saudi Arabia to start an embargo on arms in Yemen, but Saudis refused (Reuters)[5][6]
Red Cross also really wants Saudi Arabia to pause the fighting so they can deliver goodies to victims (Reuters)(CNN)(BBC)(Al Jazeera)
Saudi Arabia has also been using "special forces" [7][8][9]
Saudi Arabia has donated a lot of weapons, including RPGs, to people in Yemen (Globe&Mail)(Reuters)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/note&preloadtitle=In+the+news+nomination§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=%5B%5B2015+military+intervention+in+Yemen%7CStuff+in+Yemen%5D%5D%0A%2A+Russia+wants+Saudi+Arabia+to+stop+attacking+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Frussias-putin-iran-immediate-ceasefire-needed-yemen-163620870.html+%28Yahoo%21News%29%5D%0A%2A+Russia+has+convened+UN+Security+Council+%0A%2A+Russia+told+Saudi+Arabia+to+start+an+embargo+on+arms+in+Yemen%2C+but+Saudis+refused+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fuk.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2015%2F04%2F04%2Fuk-yemen-security-russia-idUKKBN0MV0JU20150404+%28Reuters%29%5D+%0A%2A+Red+Cross+also+really+wants+Saudi+Arabia+to+pause+the+fighting+so+they+can+deliver+goodies+to+victims+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2015%2F04%2F04%2Fus-yemen-security-idUSKBN0MV0NH20150404+%28Reuters%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2015%2F04%2F04%2Fmiddleeast%2Fyemen-saudi-forces-houthis-al-qaeda%2F+%28CNN%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-32187861+%28BBC%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fnews%2F2015%2F04%2Fyemen-air-strikes-continue-calls-halt-150404215512990.html+%28Al+Jazeera%29%5D%0A%2A+Saudi+Arabia+has+also+been+using+%22special+forces%22+%0A%2A+Saudi+Arabia+has+donated+a+lot+of+weapons%2C+including+RPGs%2C+to+people+in+Yemen+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fsaudis-airdrop-arms-to-aden-defenders-houthis-pull-back%2Farticle23789084%2F+%28Globe%26Mail%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2015%2F04%2F03%2Fus-yemen-security-aden-houthis-idUSKBN0MU0KU20150403+%28Reuters%29%5D}} tag]) Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Oppose: Garden-variety international spat, not suitable for ITN and barely notable for Wikipedia purposes at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Egypt launches strikes around Sheikh Zuweid in retaliation for the 15 Egyptian soldiers that were killed by ISIL-affiliated groups in the past week, killing about 100 terrorists according to Egyptian military sources. (PressTV)
ISIL affiliated groups have claimed responsibility for killing the 15 soldiers. (ABC)(CTV)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Article is sufficient, greatest scorer of his generation. Member of what is widely considered the greatest line in Hockey history, the Punch line with Toe Blake and Maurice Richard, last living member of that line. --Jayron3216:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits as important to ice hockey, upon adequate improvements to the article (it seems almost there, if not already). 331dot (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because we simply cannot regress on posting club legends who have been active more than 60 years ago with very limited significance in their field. I can name at least 100 ice hockey players with bigger achievements in their playing career from the last 50 years. The fact he was voted the 68th greatest ice hockey player of all time only supports the notion that he wasn't really on the top. Maybe he was notable in the history of Montreal Canadiens but definitely not in the history of ice hockey. I also find that many media omit to even post a brief obituary about himself.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that his notability came about many years ago doesn't detract from it. You're essentially saying that because he lived a long time beyond when he was notable that he isn't anymore. Being the 68th greatest player out of the thousands of professional players there has been seems to qualify for "very important". 331dot (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Meh The 68th best rock song by one list is Nazareth's "Hair of the Dog" which I have heard three times in five decades, and the movie Amélie which was as overrated as one can get (it's all red, yellow and green!). Not requesting a pull, but suggest no precedent should be established here as was done with that 30-something Glee high-school student. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that sort of assessment is that he was (by one quantitative statistical measure), the #1 player when he retired, as in he was the all-time scoring leader, a pretty good measure of success and importance to the sport. To retire the best ever is a pretty good measure of importance. It's been over 50 years since he retired, the season is also much longer today. For most of his career the season was 50-70 games long; players since the 1970s have played 80 game seasons; the league had six teams when he played, the league today has 30 teams. It is unsurprising that players have surpassed him statistically. For comparison, consider contemporaries of his from other American sports. In 1950 in the NFL, Bobby Layne led the NFL in passing with 2323 yards and Marion Motley led the league in rushing with 810 yards. They are both hall-of-fame NFL players, considered the best at their position during that time period. Those numbers would make them among the worst at their positions in today's league. The NHL is no different. Lach was the best player when he retired, and for that reason he's easily worth while for RD. --Jayron3201:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bow to your obvious expertise, because the only thing I know about the game is that it's played on the ice by people with missing teeth. My concern is that it is difficult to compare records over such a long period, for the reasons Stephen Jay Gould gives in his baseball essay, "Why No One Hits .400 Any More". μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose have we ever posted a lunar eclipse? They are quite frequent, and nowhere near as spectacular as solar eclipses. Plus, what's the point of posting after it occurred? It's like saying you missed the best dinner party last night. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Plaintiffs withdraw a lawsuit against Google that had asserted that it was illegally tying its licensing of the Android operating system to the favorable treatment of Google apps. (Reuters)
Miscellaneous news
An American sailor who was lost for 66 days in the Atlantic Ocean is found by a German tanker. He survived on a diet of solely raw fish and rainwater. (BBC)(CTV news)(Yahoo! news)
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 updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Was described, along with her husband, as "perhaps the most visible champions of gun control in the United States". Everymorningtalk18:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing her as a leader (a major player but without any political office, simply a voice), when compared to her husband, and we should be careful of importance by simple marriage. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Masem states, she may have been a player in the issue but I don't think she would have been had she not been married to her husband(and had he not been shot). 331dot (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - She fails my ITN notability threshold, and the article is frankly too undeveloped. But I do thank the nominator. This was not a bad nom. Jusdafax19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Doesn't meet criteria as independently notable, and her article is pretty bare-bones. When I updated it to reflect the news of her death, I had to add that her husband had died last year, as the information wasn't in the article already. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Christian-owned Indiana pizza shop closes its doors after receiving death and arson threats in response to the restaurant's saying it would not cater a same-sex wedding; the owners are afraid they may close permanently or leave town. (The Washington Times)
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 updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Seems to have been important in the field of raising awareness of rare diseases. CBS says "Hayley's impact stretched a long way from the town in East Sussex, England, where she was born..." Everymorningtalk18:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Don't see how she's independently notable. She achieved minor celebrity because she was terminally ill, and now she has died. It's a sad story, and we can all hope some good will come of it, but I don't really think she meets RD criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much like the 117 year old woman, she doesn't meet the death criteria for any accomplishments in any field. Posting this for the purpose of "raising awareness of rare diseases" is advocacy that Wikipedia shouldn't be engaging in. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this tugs at your heart because she's a child with a terminal illness, but she would not have been the subject of media attention without the disease had she just been an advocate. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I would like to support but I must agree that raising awareness is not a field. Is there some tangible, notable accomplishment that can be traced to her work? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I too am sympathetic but this doesn't meet our established criteria for an ITN notice. Suggest we close this, with all respects to the nominator, as supporting !votes are unlikely to carry the nomination. Thanks though. Jusdafax20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: I'm pretty sure there's a rough consensus to add the Yemen conflict to ongoing as soon as the last such blurb would roll off the ITN ticker. I don't really see this as a major development, and think rather than posting yet another blurb, we use this as more evidence for an Ongoing: link instead. --Jayron3204:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, (again) support ongoing: Per Jayron32, my understanding is that one of the ongoing Yemen pages (as a major contributor to the content, and original creator of many of the topic articles, it roughly breaks down as Yemeni Crisis (2011–present) being the umbrella for events since the start of the Arab Spring, Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état being the umbrella for the fallout from the fall of the government, Southern Yemen offensive (2015) covering the military campaign being waged by the rebels/Sana'a government against the loyalists/Aden government, and 2015 military intervention in Yemen covering the military campaign being conducted by the Arab coalition in support of Aden) should be listed as ongoing. I'm not sure why it hasn't been done. But I don't think this prison break is independently notable enough for ITN, regardless of whether the Yemen conflict has ongoing status or not (and it should). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "War in Yemen" was supposed to be added back to Ongoing after the last blurb was off of the template. Please put it back ASAP. Mamyles (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Definitely top of the preaching field, having had a mindbogglingly huge congregation for over 40 years. From Hour of Power, "...at one point attracted 1.3 million viewers from 156 countries." Article is of sufficient quality. Mamyles (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Difficult to argue top of a field - whether that field is religion or television. And 1.3M over 156 countries is a trivial number in terms of viewership. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heard the story on NPR this evening, article is of sufficient quality, and agree with OP that he was a significant figure. The coverage supports that notion, and article is good enough for ITN coverage --Jayron3204:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD: Televangelism is obviously the field. Really don't see how there's any confusion about that. This claims that he had a peak of over 20 million viewers, the most viewed televangelist of the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Clearly an independently notable figure who was at the top of his field, as little to my taste as that field may be. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just the fact that I, as a militantly atheistic European, knew who he was before seeing this, shows he meets RD criteria. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - With all due respect to TRM, who tagged the "Writings" section well down in the article which has a dead link, I think this is postable to ITN now. He's a big name, he's all over the news, and the article is decent. Run it, or fix it and run it. Jusdafax20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering an item I posted was pulled because of perceived lack of sources and a general miscomprehension of ITN guidelines just this morning, I can't see the difference. He's certainly not all over the news where I live, the article is average. I vote for your second suggestion, fix it and run it. So please, fix it, then we can run it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, although you could have formatted the references appropriately. There are also [citation needed] tags that could be addressed. Either way, you're one of very few who care enough to actively do something about a nomination they support, for which I applaud you. It's still not decent enough for me, but that certainly won't stop it being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work again. As I said before, it'd be good if the references could be properly formatted, and it seems we have a large reliance on a primary source, i.e. Schuller's blog. But I'm sure that won't stop this being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Obscure figure, barely domestic US news, of no broader international relevance and not even that significant domestic relevance. Bjerrebæk (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Says me. If you are new to Wikipedia, the signature, which tells you who wrote the comment, is the part that looks like this: "Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment: Can this be posted already? There's obviously consensus to put it up and this discussion is starting to feel like a coat-rack for other disputes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no consensus, but several solid opposes. There is obviously no agreement that this rather unknown televangelist is sufficiently notable to merit a mention here. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I don't think that assessment is correct; the quality issues seem to be resolved and there is clear support for this based on notability within the field; just because you have not heard of this person doesn't mean that they don't meet the criteria. If you feel this person doesn't meet the RD criteria, please offer your reasons why. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to post this, and it has nothing to do with whether I have heard of him, but rather with the fact that the article does not demonstrate him to be particularly notable (to the extent required to have his death featured on the main page). There is nothing in for example the introduction of the article that demonstrates him to be particularly famous at a broader level, outside his own church in his own country. Also, in addition to that, the fact that the article only has a small number of interwikis and is fairly short demonstrates his relative obscurity. His death was not mentioned at all in any media in Scandinavia that I know of, although they frequently report on the deaths of American personalities. Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you feel this person is not notable, but that does not mean that there is not consensus or that others do not feel he is notable. There is no requirement that a RD candidate (or any ITN item) be published in any particular nation or region's media(in fact, such objections are discouraged on this page above). As stated by Medeis below, this person was apparently considered notable enough to German speakers to put on the German Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word on that, but it was still incorrect to suggest there was no consensus to post here; and my above point was just that this person was notable to at least some people elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention either of your points. I just said we should never use another Wikipedia as an example of what to do when their quality standards are laughable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on notability, but Schuller was posted on the German RD almost immediately, to this point that's he's actually already been delisted to fit even more recent deaths. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This has been generating a lot of headlines for days prior to this, and now we have an agreement that is the lead story on the BBC and has been described by Obama as a "historic understanding". Seems significant. Everymorningtalk21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a treaty so the US Senate can't "veto" it, but there may be parts that require their approval(like lifting sanctions). 331dot (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because while there is a deal in place, the full announcement/signing is expected to be made in June. The only reason this was pushed in the news now is that they just did it under a slightly modified deadline and is a positive sign that the agreement will be finalized. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To note, I'm only opposing because this is not the final word on this deal, recognizing that the story is big and important for ITN, but just not this point. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really solid, comprehensive article for a story that has been a top news story in major outlets all week long. Can't come up with a reason not to post this. It's a world-wide high-interest story, and we have a good article about it. What else is needed for an ITN item? Nothing. Good idea to put this up. --Jayron3201:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that this is significant international news, and that now is the best time to post it. I don't see any problems with the article's quality. Mamyles (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add wikilink to Iran, and also link the "six other countries" to P5+1? They are the countries that negotiate with Iran, and it would answer if a reader is wondering what those six countries are. HaEr48 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Note he was given the French Legion of Honor so definitely top of field. Article's sourcing is satisfactory for posting but I'd really consider fleshing out refs in the back half of his career. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I buy that he meets criteria as top of the field. Article is fairly decent, except it needs more referencing as Masem says. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before posting, someone should go through the article and make sure that the tenses are updated etc. Otherwise, adding support. --Tone16:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only major issue is that most of the shorts/documentaries listed lack articles, so we need refs crediting them as his works. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the individual clearly qualifies for RD, the article is in pretty good shape but there are large portions without reference. I can live with it I suppose, particularly given the current climate here to post regardless of quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up a non-circular source for that many short films and documentaries, likely with non-English sources, could be quite a task. The section could be hidden, or the linked works moved into the feature films section, renamed to simply "filmography" advising that works not identified as shorts or documentaries are feature films. Or the section could be "selected shorts and documentarries" with the non-linked works removed. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
70 references throughout. Perhaps tag those specific phrases within the article you have issues with? Or else stick to objecting to articles which have fewer than 71 references? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with removing that much material from an article, whose accuracy has not been genuinely questioned. Unless anyone raises an actual issue about the remove material, I intend to restore it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do restore it. Times have changed here, we seek very little verification for certain sections of ITN items. The precedent has been set and followed several times. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Pull and trout TRM for WP:POINT violation. He's using the word precedent to mean "someone did something I didn't like before, so that means i have to do the wrong thing too to make a point". No. The article in question has valid quality issues that should keep it off the main page. The significance of a news item is of secondary importance to the purpose of ITN; the primary purpose is to highlight quality Wikipedia content. Yes, occasionally in the past mistakes have been made in this direction. That does NOT mean that we abandon the notion that the main page should feature content we are proud of. If the article has quality problems, we need to fix those first before posting. TRM posting this, based on prior expressed opinions on this very issue, tastes bad. Past mistakes do not make precedent. We should pull this for a short while till we can clean up the article. Wikipedia should have a good article about this person to put on the main page. It doesn't yet. We should fix that and then post this. --Jayron3201:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled - Shouldn't have been posted with an orange tag, and shouldn't have been posted by The Rambling Man, since he had already supported it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but needs fixing - This guy is certainly at the top of his field and is in fact INT RD notable, but the article needs more sourcing! Add more sources in his intro, career section and awards section and this should be a go.Full Support now --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original orange tag was for a section that listed some 20 films to his credit with no ref or link to the primary source. That was fixed. I have removed the page level tag; if more references are wanted then the specific claims should get {{cn}} tags. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few tweaks myself, including removing an inconsequential (and uncited) quote. It's pretty close. However, I had to add reference tag to the "Personal Life" section. The first paragraph on his family (wife, children, details on marriages to and births thereof) is entirely unreferenced. Many missing refs could be easily forgiven, but something like this has serious WP:BLP implications. If we're going to say he's married to so-and-so, or that such-and-such is his children, those are living people, and we'd better get that right. If someone could find the sources and fix that one problem, I'd have no objections to this being reposted. Thanks to Medeis for the work already done. This is almost ready, but that one needed fix is pretty glaring, and should be addressed before posting. --Jayron3205:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His NY Times obit confirms the names of his wife and three of his children (not sure what happened to the second daughter) while Variety confirms the grandchildren named in the article. It's late, I'm tired and it takes longer to edit articles properly on my tablet here, so if of someone could add those citations and look for a source for the "missing" daughter, that would be great. --ThylekShran (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I found a Portuguese-language source naming his children and giving their birth years: [11] Good thing, too, because two of the children were named incorrectly in the article, according to this obituary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're complaining because some people added references to an article and improved it in other ways? Right. --Jayron3200:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment. Aside from that, this situation is still ongoing as hostages have been taken; we will need to see what happens. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the article whose quality we are assessing here? I see a redlink... Please create and/or expand an article, because we can't post nothing. The purpose of ITN is to highlight Wikipedia content. We have no content as of right now. --Jayron3212:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded a bit, but info is still pending due the currency of the event. I'm done for the day, someone else has to pick up the baton. The info I added is a bit disorganized. starship.paint~ ¡Olé!13:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article will hopefully keep expanding, but it looks to be in decent enough shape for ITN now. Thanks to those who worked on this. --Jayron3214:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support: I saw this was happening before I went to bed last night and turned out to be more deadly than it was reported then. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
